03476
1 MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION
2
3
4
5
6
7 RED RIVER FLOODWAY EXPANSION PROJECT
8
9
10
11
12 =======================================
13 Wednesday, March 9, 2005
14 Delta Hotel, 350 St. Mary Avenue
15 Winnipeg, Manitoba
16 ========================================
17
18 Volume 15
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
03477
1 APPEARANCES:
2 Clean Environment Commission:
3 Mr. Terry Sargeant - Chairman
Mr. Barrie Webster - Member
4 Mr. Wayne Motheral - Member
Mr. Doug Abra - Counsel
5 Mr. Dave Farlinger - Technical consultant
Ms. Cathy Johnson - Secretary to Commission
6 Ms. Joyce Mueller - Secretary
7 Manitoba Conservation:
8 Mr. Trent Hreno - Chair, Project Admin Team
Mr. Bruce Webb - Chair, Tech Advisory
9 Committee
Mr. Stewart Pierce - Counsel
10
11 Manitoba Floodway Authority:
12 Mr. Rick Handlon - Counsel
Mr. Jim Thomson
13 Mr. Doug McNeil
Mr. Doug Peterson
14 Mr. Cam Osler - Intergroup Consulting
Mr. John Osler - Intergroup Consulting
15 Mr. David Morgan - TetrES Consulting
Mr. George Rempel - TetrES Consulting
16 Mr. Robert Sinclair - KGS
Ms. Marci Friedman-Hamm - KGS
17
18 Participants:
19 Mr. Bob Starr - Ritchot Concerned Citizens
Mr. Bob Bodnaruk - RM of Springfield
20 Mr. Steve Strang - RM of St. Clements
Mr. Orvel Currie - Counsel to Municipalities
21 Mr. Doug Chorney - Coalition for Flood
Protection North
22 Mr. Kerry McLuhan - Coalition for Flood
Protection North
23 Mr. Rob Loudfoot - 768 Association
Mr. Y. Shumuk - 768 Association
24 Paul Clifton - Paul Clifton
Mr. Jeff Frank - Rivers West
25 Gaile Whelan Enns - Manitoba Wildlands
Earl Stevenson - Peguis Indian Band
03478
1 Participants: (continued)
2
3 Mr. Jake Buhler - Cooks Creek Conservation
Mr. Lloyd Crooks - Cooks Creek Conservation
4 Mr. Jon Stefanson - Cooks Creek Conservation
Mr. Daryl Chicoine - Counsel
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
03479
1 INDEX OF PROCEEDINGS
2 Presentation by David Andres 3483
Cross-examination by Floodway Authority 3501
3 Questions by Panel 3502
Questions by Mr. Moir 3509
4
Presentation by Mr. Moir 3509
5 Answer to Undertaking by Mr. Carson 3557
Closing - Rural Municipalities 3595
6 Closing - Coalition for Flood Protection
North of the Floodway 3681
7 Closing - Manitoba Wildlands 3706
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
03480
1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS
2
3
4 124 Presentation: Evaluation of the 3746
Effects of the Expansion of the
5 Winnipeg Floodway on Ice Levels
Water Levels Downstream of the
6 Floodway Outlet, presented by David
Andres, Northwest Hydraulic
7 Consultants
8 125 Submission: Evaluation of the 3746
Effects of the Expansion of the
9 Winnipeg Floodway on Ice Levels
Water Levels Downstream of the
10 Floodway Outlet
11 126 Presentation: Improvements to 3747
Minimize Artificial Flooding
12
127 Closing statement: RM of 3747
13 Springfield - John Holland
14 128 Closing statement: Rural 3747
Municipality of East St. Paul, St.
15 Clements and Springfield by Orvel
Currie
16
129 Cumulative Environmental Effects 3747
17
130 Closing Statement: Coalition for 3747
18 Flood Protection North of the
Floodway presented by Jack Jonasson
19
131 Closing Statement: Manitoba 3747
20 Wildlands
21
22
23
24
25
03481
1 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2005
2 Upon commencing at 9:00 a.m.
3
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning. Could we
5 come to order, please. I think we have a
6 relatively busy agenda today. First we will deal
7 the ice jam matter. Following that, Mr. Carson
8 will report on an undertaking that the Floodway
9 Authority undertook to respond to a couple of days
10 ago. Following that, we will have two and perhaps
11 three closing statements.
12 I discovered yesterday that due to a,
13 I'll call it a loophole in our procedures,
14 somebody who registered as a participant but has
15 not participated up to this point may in fact be
16 entitled to make a closing statement. So we may
17 have a third closing statement this afternoon.
18 So first off, I'd like to call upon
19 Mr. Dave Andres. You will recall that I reported
20 to these hearings last week that the Clean
21 Environment Commission had contracted with
22 Mr. Andres to give us a third set of eyes to look
23 at the ice jam issue or the issue of ice jamming
24 north of the floodway outlet. Mr. Andres provided
25 us with a written report a couple of days ago
03482
1 which was available to people here yesterday.
2 Mr. Andres, first of all, under our
3 procedures, you are required to be sworn in so
4 I'll ask you to state your name for the record and
5 I'll have the Commission secretary swear you in.
6 MR. ANDRES: David Andres.
7
8 (DAVID ANDRES: SWORN)
9
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Andres.
11 If you could briefly introduce yourself and then
12 proceed with your presentation. Just let me note
13 that following your presentation, there will be
14 questions from the Floodway Authority, from
15 members of this panel and from the Coalition for
16 Flood Protection North. And I expect that Mr. Jim
17 Moir will conduct that questioning for them.
18 MR. ANDRES: I understand. My name is
19 Dave Andres. I am a professional engineer. I
20 graduated from the University of Manitoba in 1973
21 with a bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering. I
22 subsequently went to Alberta where I worked with
23 the Alberta Government in the River Engineering
24 Branch where we looked at river issues in Alberta
25 including sedimentation and ice jams and ice
03483
1 related issues. I then got a masters degree in
2 engineering from the University of Alberta in 1981
3 after which I worked at the Alberta Research
4 Council where we did extensive research on river
5 ice and its impacts on the management of water
6 resources.
7 In about 1992, I went into the
8 consulting sector where I have been ever since
9 consulting to hydro power companies, local
10 authorities, governments on cold regions,
11 hydraulics and ice-related issues in rivers.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
13 MR. ANDRES: Last week, I was called
14 to provide an opinion on the issues related to ice
15 and ice jamming downstream of the floodway and on
16 the potential impacts that the existing floodway
17 and the expanded floodway may have on those
18 particular issues. So I reviewed a number of
19 volumes of material provided by the Floodway
20 Authority over the last week. I also looked at
21 the transcripts of the proceedings that have been
22 held to date, at least those that seem to relate
23 to the ice issues downstream of the floodway. I
24 provided a report to the Floodway Authority on
25 Monday. And what I'd like to do now is just
03484
1 highlight some of the important findings or talk a
2 bit about the process that I went through to come
3 up with my conclusions and then also summarize the
4 important conclusions related to what I was
5 charged to do in this investigation.
6 So the title of my presentation this
7 morning as an introduction towards further
8 questions is generally related to the effects of
9 the Winnipeg Floodway on ice conditions downstream
10 of the floodway outlet. And what I tried to do
11 for the most part is to analyze the historical
12 data that was available. I will review some of
13 the investigations that has been done relative to
14 that historical data and how the floodway may
15 affect water levels downstream during the ice
16 periods and then come up with some consensus or
17 some sense of what the potential impact of the
18 expanded floodway might be.
19 So the objectives basically were to
20 assess the impacts of the current floodway or the
21 existing floodway on ice-related water levels,
22 assess the impacts of the expanded floodway on
23 ice-related water levels downstream of the
24 floodway and provide an expert opinion on the
25 effects of existing and expanded floodway.
03485
1 The scope of the work that I generally
2 looked at was basically going back and trying to
3 understand what the channel characteristics, what
4 the issues were downstream of the floodway. And
5 that involved reviewing the channel geometry, the
6 flows in the system and the mechanics of breakup
7 downstream of the floodway. I then examined
8 operating protocols of the current and expanded
9 floodway and identified effects on flow conditions
10 and ice processes downstream. And the idea was to
11 see if there was anything in the operations of the
12 existing floodway or the proposed floodway,
13 expanded floodway that might exacerbate breakup
14 and subsequent ice-related water levels.
15 And I also conducted a very brief
16 assessment, and I have to underscore brief,
17 looking at options for possibly mitigating high
18 ice-related water levels downstream of the
19 floodway.
20 Now, in terms of ice conditions
21 downstream of the floodway, there is not a lot of
22 information available to try and characterize that
23 but certainly by putting together some of the
24 historical observations, looking at flows to the
25 Lockport gauge, you can come up with sort of a
03486
1 sense of what happens downstream of the floodway.
2 And I'm not going to spend a lot of time and
3 terminology, but basically -- and I discussed many
4 of these things in my report, but basically both
5 thermal and dynamic events, types of breakup can
6 occur downstream of the floodway. And by thermal
7 events, what we mean is basically a non-issue. In
8 other words, the ice melts in place. We've had
9 discussion about this in these proceedings earlier
10 on sometimes called an over-mature type of
11 breakup. And typically things aren't -- high
12 ice-related water levels are not a problem.
13 Dynamic breakup can occur when you
14 have significant flows during the spring period
15 and it essentially breaks up the ice while it's
16 still in its more or less intact state. And
17 typically whether you have a thermal or dynamic
18 breakup depends certainly on the flow patterns in
19 the basin and also in the magnitude of flows that
20 might be experienced during breakup.
21 And typically when you look at the
22 historical record, low run-off usually produces a
23 thermal breakup. So if the flows are less than 12
24 to 1,300 cubic metres per second as a result of
25 the spring flood, then typically you'll get a
03487
1 benign breakup, thermal breakup and no real
2 significant issues appear to be evident.
3 On the other hand, a high run-off can
4 produce a dynamic breakup. In that sense, it's
5 very difficult. I mean the ice cannot respond
6 thermally to the melt period and the high flows
7 destroy the ice cover and lead to the formation of
8 ice jams.
9 Ice jams downstream of the floodway
10 can occur due to two basic I guess processes, the
11 congestion of ice whereby the ice that enters a
12 certain reach cannot exit at the same rate as it
13 enters and, therefore, you get an accumulation of
14 ice and you get a jam formed and by surface
15 blockages. And in this case, surface blockages
16 basically indicate that there's a solid ice cover
17 that interrupts the flow of the ice that's coming
18 into the region, causes it to accumulate and jam.
19 As far as I'm concerned, it's
20 irrelevant which of these processes dominate.
21 Both can cause jams to form. And once those jams
22 form, the severity of the jam and the height of
23 the water that is experienced is a function of the
24 discharge in the river.
25 And certainly, when you look at the
03488
1 channel conditions downstream of the floodway,
2 they are conducive to the formation of ice jams.
3 All those so-called traditional or closely-held
4 philosophical reasons why an ice jam should form
5 occur downstream of the floodway. We have
6 back-water conditions from Lake Winnipeg. We have
7 got a channel slope that's decreasing as you move
8 downstream. You've got some sense of a northward
9 flowing river that might have some effect on that.
10 But basically, given the channel geometry, the
11 heights of the banks, there is less ability to
12 transport ice downstream of the floodway than you
13 have, say, upstream of the floodway, further up
14 along the Red River. So that the area certainly
15 is susceptible to ice jamming.
16 Now, I just want to discuss very
17 briefly some of the salient breakup
18 characteristics downstream of the floodway that I
19 was able to identify. And I tried to look at what
20 causes jams and how severe are the jams and when
21 might flooding start to be apparent.
22 And it seems like when you look at the
23 historical record, the natural spring floods have
24 been about 50 per cent greater since the floodway
25 has been constructed. In other words, in the 30
03489
1 years prior to the floodway, it seems like the
2 flows were substantially lower than they have been
3 in 30 years after the floodway. So that would
4 sort of give a sense that perhaps the floodway had
5 some impact on ice jams and it certainly would
6 give a, you know, give a real I guess impression
7 and in fact probably true that the ice jams have
8 been more severe since the floodway has been
9 constructed. But that's simply a function of the
10 way the flows have changed in the spring period
11 over those 60 years, 30 years prior to the
12 floodway and 30 years after the floodway has come
13 into operation.
14 Ice-related issues appear to develop
15 when flow exceeds 1,300 cubic metres per second.
16 Now, when I looked at the discharge records at
17 Lockport that basically define what the flow
18 conditions are downstream of the floodway and into
19 the City of Selkirk and on towards Lake Winnipeg,
20 and you rank the years from the largest flow year
21 to the smallest flow year, all the historical ice
22 jam observations or all the historical records of
23 ice jams and ice-related flooding certainly occur
24 in the top half of those years. And basically,
25 1,300 cubic metres per second is about the medium
03490
1 breakup discharge and all of the ice jam events
2 that have been observed occur in the upper half of
3 that data.
4 The next thing that was obvious was
5 that the situation in the City of Selkirk as is
6 characterized by the channel characteristics
7 around Selkirk and as is reflected in the water
8 levels that are measured at Selkirk, both from a
9 Water Survey Canada type of gate systems, both at
10 the Manitoba Hydro generating station and from
11 general observations, is that noticeable flooding
12 seems to occur if jams form at flows as low as 800
13 cubic metres per second. That's a very small
14 discharge, a low discharge. And I think what it
15 demonstrates is the fact that the area around
16 Selkirk is very susceptible to ice jamming. And
17 should a jam form at 800 cubic metres per second,
18 you could get overflow of the road that leads to
19 the east approach of the bridge at Selkirk.
20 So it wouldn't take much to produce
21 high flood levels during breakup at Selkirk should
22 a jam form there.
23 Now the other observation was that ice
24 would be swept out of the channel that flows in
25 excess of 2,500 cubic metres per second. In other
03491
1 words, given the water levels that result because
2 of the flow and the ice that's in the channel,
3 once you get flows above that magnitude, the water
4 level is high enough such that you lose
5 containment within the river channel and you
6 basically -- the ice basically leaves the channel
7 more or less and that limits how high the water
8 level can get. Sort of an important concept that
9 comes up later on.
10 Exacerbation of ice conditions.
11 Obviously, if you want to look at what impact the
12 floodway may have on ice conditions downstream is
13 you have to identify first of all what would it
14 take to increase the outcome or the negative
15 aspects of ice jams. And there are basically two
16 ways in which you can exacerbate ice conditions.
17 And number one is by increasing the external
18 forces on the ice cover. And by doing that, you
19 promote perhaps an earlier breakup than you might
20 otherwise get. And if you do promote an earlier
21 breakup and you get a jam form, if you have higher
22 discharges during that period, then you will
23 ultimately get higher water levels.
24 The other method of course is by
25 increasing the resistance to the ice cover, and
03492
1 you can do that in a couple of ways. You can
2 increase the thickness in a philosophical sort of
3 way or you can increase the strength of the ice
4 cover or you can get a reduction in the slope of
5 the water surface, in other words, from back-water
6 effects from Lake Winnipeg that will cause an ice
7 cover to want to form over and above the situation
8 where it would not likely form if you had lower
9 back-water conditions.
10 So basically, however, it's very
11 difficult to systematically increase the
12 resistance to the ice cover. So when it comes to
13 ways in which you might exacerbate ice jam
14 conditions, it's simply by changing the flows in
15 the system in a way that they may, number one,
16 promote earlier breakup than what might otherwise
17 occur; and number 2, once that breakup has
18 occurred, you would then cause higher jams to
19 develop than otherwise might at a lower discharge.
20 So basically, those two ways are the
21 only ways in which a floodway can possibly have
22 some impact on ice jams downstream.
23 Now looking at floodway operation
24 under the Rule 1 operating criteria, or criterion.
25 The existing floodway is operated so that there is
03493
1 no change in upstream water levels relative to
2 natural water levels upstream of the floodway. As
3 flow is shunted into the floodway, flow in the
4 river is throttled back by the operation of the
5 weir. So you're not increasing the flows through
6 Winnipeg, you're just simply splitting them into
7 two.
8 Travel times for the flow splits
9 between the floodway and the river are longer than
10 those for the river alone. And that's just a
11 fundamental hydraulic truism on the basis of the
12 hydraulic characteristics that you have of both
13 the floodway and the natural river. And I talk
14 about times and travel times and velocities and
15 impacts in my report that I provided on Monday.
16 The longer travel times certainly
17 ensure that flows do not cause a premature breakup
18 downstream. In other words, the fact that you are
19 lengthening the travel times means you're reducing
20 the rate in which the discharge is increasing
21 downstream and thereby you will not exacerbate the
22 formation or the creation of breakup downstream of
23 the floodway.
24 The natural water levels upstream
25 ensure that no flow increases during the periods
03494
1 when jam is present. So again, the floodway, the
2 existing floodway does not change or increase the
3 flows that you might have seen downstream of the
4 floodway relative to what would occur naturally.
5 So from that sense, there is no real
6 way in which a floodway can have any effect on ice
7 jams downstream.
8 Now in terms of the expanded floodway
9 operation under Rule 1, again, there will be no
10 change in the upstream water levels relative to
11 the current floodway. So you are not going to be
12 releasing any more water from the floodway. As
13 the flow is shunted into the floodway, flow in the
14 river is also throttled back and that again
15 prevents any sort of increases in the arrival --
16 in advancing the arrival of the flood downstream
17 of the floodway.
18 The travel times for the flow splits
19 in between the floodway and the river are the same
20 as those for the current floodway at discharges
21 less than 2,000 cubic metres per second. And
22 again, those are identified in my report and we
23 can turn to that afterwards if required.
24 And slightly shorter travel times
25 along the expanded floodway are evident at Q's
03495
1 that are greater than 2,000 cubic metres per
2 second. But these are offset by longer travel
3 times in the river. And the change is only about
4 one hour out of 10 or one hour out of 15. So
5 there's a very very small reduction in the travel
6 times at flows greater than 2,000 cubic metres per
7 second with the expanded floodway operating.
8 Given the timing of the spring flood,
9 given the duration of the spring flooding and sort
10 of the variation in discharge that you get from
11 changes in channel storage as ice conditions
12 develop, as ice releases, as ice pieces accumulate
13 and water levels increase in change along the
14 natural river, this small change in what might
15 happen at flows greater than 2,000 cubic metres
16 per second will not significantly change the
17 breakup patterns. It won't change the flow
18 patterns and it won't have any significant effect
19 on ice jams downstream of the floodway.
20 Rule 2, floodway operation. Now Rule
21 2, and I'm sure we've talked about this
22 considerably in the proceedings up to now, occurs
23 at discharges greater than about 4,500 cubic
24 metres per second, natural flows upstream of the
25 floodway. Now, it could be plus or minus 100 of
03496
1 that, but approximately that number.
2 And under Rule 2, water levels
3 upstream of the floodway are allowed to rise above
4 natural levels for both the existing and the
5 expanded floodway which means that you are now
6 holding water back and you're not releasing as
7 much water downstream. Therefore, automatically
8 you are creating some benefits should ice
9 conditions be an issue at flows greater than
10 4,500 cubic metres per second.
11 The increased flood plain storage will
12 reduce these flows thus mitigating ice jam levels
13 relative to natural conditions. And on the other
14 hand, though, the expanded floodway will produce
15 higher flows than the existing floodway under the
16 Rule 2 operating condition because it certainly
17 reduces the rate of that rise upstream of the
18 floodway, therefore, it has to allow more flows to
19 move downstream into the area of Selkirk.
20 These changes are moot, however,
21 because neither a stable jam or a stable ice cover
22 could exist at flows encountered under the Rule 2
23 operation. So although I've talked a bit about
24 Rule 2 operations, there really is no way in which
25 the flows that are being regulated under the Rule
03497
1 2 criteria actually could, in any way, interact or
2 occur in the system while there's an ice cover
3 downstream.
4 Now, salient conclusions, and these
5 are just the important conclusion that I tried to
6 highlight from my report. Number one, the channel
7 morphology downstream of the floodway contributes
8 to ice-related floodway. I think that should be
9 an accepted fact. Higher spring floods in
10 post-floodway period than in the pre-floodway
11 period likely give the impression that the
12 floodway exacerbates ice-related flooding. And in
13 fact, what it is is simply a function of the
14 higher flows in that 30 year period.
15 Ice-related flooding is a serious
16 issue in the vicinity of Selkirk. It doesn't take
17 much to create high water levels or a flood
18 condition should a jam form. And these same
19 issues would occur upstream of Lake Winnipeg and
20 with or without the floodway. The floodway itself
21 has no impact on those particular ice levels.
22 There is no simple solution to
23 preventing this flooding short of building major
24 infrastructure. You can't sort of weaken the ice,
25 you can't drill holes in it, you can't blast it,
03498
1 you can't dust it, you can't do anything that's
2 going to have a significant impact on reducing
3 these ice jam risks other than building some sort
4 of infrastructure that's going to protect the
5 residents or the flood plain from flooding.
6 The two pipe concept of increased
7 flows downstream of the floodway is incorrect.
8 The gates on the Red River throttle back the flow
9 in the river to offset the extra conveyances
10 gained from the floodway. It may appear that
11 you've got this pool of water upstream, you've got
12 these two channels that more effectively convey
13 flow downstream; however, the gates throttle the
14 flow in the Red and, therefore, there is no
15 increase in flows from that pool of water relative
16 to what would occur under natural conditions.
17 And finally, the existing floodway
18 does not exacerbate ice-related flood levels
19 downstream of the floodway and the expanded
20 floodway also will not exacerbate ice-related
21 flood levels downstream of the floodway. There is
22 no way that the flows change in a manner that
23 would cause that to happen.
24 I looked at a couple of other issues
25 and I made some recommendations just on a cursory
03499
1 sort of basis. And I think what is evident is
2 that there's been a fair amount of work that has
3 been done on ice jams downstream of the floodway.
4 We've looked at -- the Floodway Authority and I
5 have looked at this information. And what I've
6 noticed is that a lot of that analysis has been
7 done from the perspective of the floodway, looking
8 at the impacts of the water levels downstream on
9 how the floodway may operate. I think that
10 perhaps it would be worthwhile that we should put
11 additional effort into investigating and more
12 formally describing and characterizing the ice
13 conditions at Selkirk and downstream from the
14 point of view of what those ice processes and the
15 outcomes of those ice processes, what impact they
16 have on the residents in that area. It's
17 important to look at it from the other perspective
18 also.
19 I also looked at a number of data that
20 were presented in this analysis to look at the
21 impacts of the flows downstream on the floodway
22 performance. And I would recommend that a more
23 extensive review be undertaken of the historical
24 ice related water levels at Selkirk to better
25 quantify the extent of the flooding issue and to
03500
1 come up with some definitive values or more
2 definitive flood levels than what had been used in
3 the report.
4 And finally, I think we should get a
5 more explicit assessment or description of ice
6 conditions of the floodway entrance in terms of
7 how ice conditions on the Red River through
8 Winnipeg affect when and how water flows start
9 entering the floodway.
10 And that concludes my summary of
11 findings in my report that you have before you.
12 Thank you very much.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much,
14 Mr. Andres. Does the Authority have some
15 questions for Mr. Andres?
16 MR. MCNEIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
17 Mr. Andres, I understand that you did confer with
18 another ice expert and could you tell us who that
19 was and that person's qualifications as well in
20 preparation for reviewing this work and doing your
21 presentation?
22 MR. ANDRES: Yes. I had some brief
23 discussions with a Mr. Charles Neal (ph) of our
24 office. He's a rather respected hydraulic
25 engineer in Canada and he had provided a mechanism
03501
1 for me to sort of vet my conclusions and the
2 results of my analysis.
3 MR. MCNEIL: Thank you. That's all,
4 Mr. Chair.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Barrie?
6 MR. WEBSTER: Just a brief expansion
7 on your comments about increased resistance
8 causing ice jams. I presume you were talking
9 about the presence of islands and channel
10 narrowing and bends and that sort of thing in the
11 river?
12 MR. ANDRES: Partly with respect to
13 that, yes. Typically, though, when you do an ice
14 jam analysis, you look at the channel geometry as
15 providing the framework or the -- of how the
16 flows, the characteristics of the flows in the
17 system. They sort of set the hydraulic
18 characteristics of what happens under an ice
19 cover. And the channel geometry itself would
20 basically reflect the presence of islands and
21 shoals and those kinds of things.
22 However, that is relatively stable
23 through time, not necessarily always stable,
24 relatively stable through time. But what can
25 change dramatically from year to year to year,
03502
1 depending on antecedent conditions, is the
2 elevation of Lake Winnipeg. And so if the
3 elevation of Lake Winnipeg is high, that creates a
4 backwater situation that reduces the ability for
5 that ice that enters upstream of that reach to be
6 flushed through the reach. So it contributes to
7 the formation of ice jams and it contributes to
8 higher levels being required before you can
9 release that ice from the reach.
10 So that's sort of the one aspect of
11 increasing the resistance I guess of their ice in
12 that reach. The other condition of course is some
13 way in which you can perhaps strengthen the ice
14 cover by artificially thickening it, building ice
15 roads or ice bridges and things like that.
16 MR. WEBSTER: And did you consider the
17 situation in which river ice can be released from
18 the banks by rising water and be moved in a single
19 chunk and then jammed in the downstream area? Is
20 that something that would change your conclusions?
21 MR. ANDRES: No, it -- I have
22 considered that, yes, but it would not change my
23 conclusions. Basically what happens is if the ice
24 remains as a strong single sheet, it will simply
25 rise up as the water levels rise up but it won't
03503
1 contribute to additional increases in stage
2 because it's unbroken, it's smooth. It's only
3 when that ice cover actually fractures and forms
4 individual ice pieces which then accumulate and
5 increase the resistance to the flow underneath
6 that broken ice cover that you actually get an
7 exacerbation in the river stage relative to the
8 solid ice conditions.
9 MR. WEBSTER: So the overall message
10 you're giving us then is that the floodway and the
11 expanded floodway should have no net effect on the
12 likelihood of ice jam related flooding downstream
13 of the Floodway outlet?
14 MR. ANDRES: That's correct, yes.
15 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Andres, I'm just
17 referring to your main report. And pages 11, 12
18 and 13, you present four different tables that
19 summarize travel times. And the last column on
20 each page talks about potential benefits in flow
21 downstream. Could you describe those potential
22 benefits, please?
23 MR. ANDRES: It was just a general way
24 of characterizing if there would be a benefit to
25 of the floodway relative to the natural conditions
03504
1 in terms of number one, perhaps delaying the
2 arrival of the water to the downstream part of the
3 floodway -- downstream to the floodway and if in
4 fact, once we did get the water moving through the
5 floodway, it would sort of reduce the rate at
6 which the peak of that floodway would arrive
7 downstream.
8 So it was just a way of characterizing
9 whether in fact the condition was worse or better
10 than natural conditions for the various flows that
11 you might see upstream of the floodway.
12 And basically, what it says is that at
13 a discharge of 1,250 cubic metres per second
14 natural upstream of the floodway, there really is
15 no attenuation in the flow because of the
16 floodway, there's no reduction in the flood peaks
17 that might occur.
18 At flows greater than that, the
19 existing floodway does provide some benefit or
20 relief in terms of, number one, reducing the time
21 it takes for that water to get downstream and also
22 reducing the peak level that might occur because
23 of that.
24 So there are benefits from the
25 existing floodway relative to the natural
03505
1 conditions at flows at above 1,500 cubic metres
2 per second.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Table 5 on page 13, the
4 last three at 2,500, 3,000 and 4,000 cubic metres
5 per second, there is no benefit. Are there any
6 disadvantages or disbenefits?
7 MR. ANDRES: Well, this basically
8 looks at the impacts at which the floodway has on
9 the timing of the arrival of flows via the
10 floodway downstream -- to the area downstream of
11 the floodway. And above 2,500 cubic metres per
12 second, the travel times through the floodway are
13 slightly shorter than they would be under the
14 existing floodway. So we don't get a benefit
15 there. But in terms of there being a dramatic
16 exacerbation of ice conditions downstream, the
17 differences are so small relative to what's there
18 now that there would not be any huge effects on
19 ice conditions downstream of the floodway.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. In your
21 presentation this morning, you said that short of
22 a lot of infrastructure changes, there is little
23 that can be done. What kind of infrastructure
24 changes might, assuming we had all the money in
25 the world, and we know from yesterday's budget we
03506
1 don't, but assuming we had all the money in the
2 world, what kind of infrastructure changes might
3 address the ice jamming issue?
4 MR. ANDRES: Well, that's a really
5 difficult question to answer off the cuff. Like I
6 say, given the economic realities from a purely
7 philosophical perspective, I guess there's two
8 ways in which you can mitigate those ice jams.
9 The best way in my mind is dyking. I mean if you
10 provided dyking in the lower areas, that would
11 certainly reduce the flooding. It wouldn't change
12 how often jams occur. And in fact, it might
13 perhaps make the jams a bit higher than they would
14 be now because you are confining the flow to the
15 river channel. It's a very narrow channel. So
16 dyking is the best method that I can sort of see
17 as being a way to alleviate the flooding down
18 there.
19 The other way could be via some sort
20 of bypass channel but that is not clear in my mind
21 that that would necessarily operate given the
22 backwater conditions from Lake Winnipeg and the
23 type of terrain that we have to deal with there.
24 It is something you would have to certainly
25 examine more closely and not be so arbitrary about
03507
1 defining as being a solution.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
3 Mr. Jonasson and Mr. Moir, if you'd come to the
4 front table. Now, given the nature of this
5 particular discussion, I'm prepared to allow a bit
6 of an exchange of ideas rather than a strict
7 question and answer process between Mr. Moir and
8 Mr. Andres at this point.
9 MR. JONASSON: Yes, we're as
10 interested in getting at the truth as the
11 Commission is. And we want to present all the
12 evidence that we think is relevant. Jim was asked
13 by Mr. Webster if he could gather information that
14 may help us in finding a solution the last time
15 that Jim was here, and he has done that.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: I think in fact what
17 Dr. Webster asked was whether Mr. Moir and
18 Mr. Carson could sit down over that beer and come
19 to some solution, which I understand they were
20 unable to do.
21 MR. JONASSON: They were unable to do,
22 that's correct.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe it was the lack
24 of beer at 9:00 in the morning.
25 MR. JONASSON: We don't know. And
03508
1 we're talking about a subject that's irrelevant.
2 I'd like to get us on to the question of ice
3 jamming and get us at a way of dealing with ice
4 jamming.
5 We still have the empirical evidence
6 with respect to the observed height of water and
7 the number of ice jams that have occurred during
8 the operation, the time of operation of the
9 floodway. As a matter of fact, we had a drought
10 year in 2003. The highest level ever recorded,
11 water level ever recorded north of the floodway
12 outlet occurred in spring of 2004 when there was a
13 massive ice jam during the operation of the
14 floodway.
15 MR. MOIR: I have a number of
16 questions and discussion points, I have four
17 discussion points for Mr. Andres. I guess first
18 comment, please say hi to Charlie for me. I
19 hadn't seen him for a very long time.
20 MR. ANDRES: He also passes on his
21 regards.
22 MR. MOIR: Thank you very much. My
23 first comment is along the adequacy of their
24 review, the time that you were allotted. I
25 believe I heard you say you were provided with
03509
1 materials last week sometime, you had two, three
2 days to go through it. Do you think that time was
3 sufficient for you to develop a thorough
4 understanding of the ice jamming, the operations
5 of the floodway, the possible impacts of the
6 expansion?
7 MR. ANDRES: Yes, it was.
8 MR. MOIR: It was?
9 MR. ANDRES: Yes.
10 MR. MOIR: So you are quite content
11 that your decisions could, with your decisions or
12 your recommendations, lead into the design,
13 construction of a major project based on three
14 days of work?
15 MR. ANDRES: Well, what I was asked to
16 review was the potential impacts of the floodway
17 on ice conditions downstream. There are lots of
18 other issues related to the design of the floodway
19 that I certainly didn't look at, geotechnical,
20 groundwater, et cetera. Relative to the very
21 narrow question about the impacts of the floodway
22 on the ice conditions downstream, the information
23 I had certainly made sense to me. There was no
24 information there that conflicted with the other
25 information. I was able to draw out a relatively
03510
1 consistent view of the ice jam situations at
2 Selkirk. And given the very defined, narrowly
3 defined operation of the floodway under the Rule 1
4 criteria, yes, I had enough information to assess
5 whether the floodway would actually have an impact
6 downstream or not.
7 MR. MOIR: So are you able to make
8 categorical yes/no statements about the impact of
9 expansion on ice jamming.
10 MR. ANDRES: Yes, on the basis of the
11 hydraulic characteristics of the river, the
12 floodway, and the operating guidelines, I can,
13 yes.
14 MR. MOIR: Your report includes some
15 recommendations for understanding, further work on
16 the ice jamming downstream of the Lockport area.
17 First two recommendations I believe --
18 MR. ANDRES: Yes.
19 MR. MOIR: -- I'm having a little
20 trouble understanding, being able to say
21 categorically, no, but we should do more work.
22 MR. ANDRES: The reason for those
23 recommendations were because I think the ice jam
24 situation downstream of the floodway is
25 significant. I mean, there certainly is evidence
03511
1 that jams occur at relatively low flows, can
2 occur -- sorry, if jams should occur even at
3 relatively low flows, you would get significant
4 flooding in the vicinity of Selkirk. So I think
5 that's an important issue that has to resolve
6 further.
7 In terms of what impact the floodway
8 has on those levels, I'm very confident to say
9 that it has virtually no impact on those levels.
10 MR. MOIR: Second, just general
11 comment, you had done a lot of work for the last
12 almost 30 years now on ice jamming --
13 MR. ANDRES: That's right, yes.
14 MR. MOIR: -- mostly in Alberta and
15 whatnot. Have you done any work on hydrology
16 modeling?
17 MR. ANDRES: Yes, I have.
18 MR. MOIR: You've used various
19 hydrology models?
20 MR. ANDRES: Yes, I have.
21 MR. MOIR: Which ones have you used?
22 MR. ANDRES: Well, HSP, HSPS, HEC 1,
23 variations of HEC 1, SAR modeling. We've built
24 many of our own models to look at weekly flows in
25 natural basins and, of course, we have also done
03512
1 some modeling for regulated conditions also.
2 MR. MOIR: Any of those models include
3 reservoir routing?
4 MR. ANDRES: The ones we built, yes,
5 they include reservoir routing, yes.
6 MR. MOIR: And do you do any small
7 scale modeling on say storm water ponds?
8 MR. ANDRES: Storm water ponds?
9 MR. MOIR: Yes, the effect of storm
10 water ponds.
11 MR. ANDRES: No, I have never looked
12 at rural, or urban sort of issues related to water
13 management and storm water detentions.
14 MR. MOIR: You've not done work on
15 retaining water and the effects of retaining
16 water, like in a pond?
17 MR. ANDRES: Not explicitly, no.
18 MR. MOIR: Okay. Third point has do
19 with presence or non-presence of ice cover in the
20 area downstream of Lockport. For this review, did
21 you do any calculations related to whether an ice
22 cover would be stable or not stable downstream of
23 Lockport?
24 MR. ANDRES: You mean a solid ice
25 cover or broken ice cover?
03513
1 MR. MOIR: Ice cover.
2 MR. ANDRES: Yes, I did.
3 MR. MOIR: And what were those
4 calculations related to?
5 MR. ANDRES: They were related to the
6 ability for the ice to remain stable at a
7 particular discharge in the river, given an
8 accumulation of ice and the subsequent water
9 levels that develop under that accumulation. And
10 the results of my analysis show that at flows in
11 excess of about 2,500 cubic metres per second, it
12 would be very difficult, impossible to maintain an
13 ice cover, either broken or solid, in the reach
14 downstream of the floodway.
15 MR. MOIR: Well, what processes were
16 you basing those calculations on? What was the
17 physical circumstance that you were calculating
18 against? If you could describe -- you have a
19 mental picture of what the ice would look like in
20 that reach and you are doing calculations to that
21 description -- could you describe what that would
22 have looked like when you are doing the stability
23 calculations?
24 MR. ANDRES: Well, it would relate to,
25 first of, all the ability of the solid ice sheet.
03514
1 Once the water levels increase under an increasing
2 discharge, to maintain its integrity on the basis
3 of the forces that develop on that ice cover, on
4 one hand, and also the rate at which that ice
5 cover deteriorates on the other hand. So it first
6 of all examined the stability of solid ice cover
7 under rising water levels and rising discharges,
8 and it also then looked at the -- once that ice
9 cover was broken, of course, that doesn't
10 necessarily suggest that it's not an issue
11 anymore, but once the ice cover breaks up and you
12 start getting accumulation of broken ice, then at
13 that point you can also assess whether the cover
14 will be stable. And I found that at 2,500 cubic
15 metres per second or thereabouts, it would not be
16 able to exist in the river.
17 MR. MOIR: Were you using Pariset,
18 Hauser's criteria, or strength of the ice sheet?
19 MR. ANDRES: I was using initially the
20 strength of the ice sheet and considerations about
21 the rate at which it deteriorates, and the
22 geometry and the plan form of the river and the
23 kind of forces that can develop on that ice cover.
24 And then in terms of the broken ice cover, or the
25 jam situation, it was basically related to the
03515
1 ability of the channel to contain that ice jam
2 once it got to the particular level associated
3 with the 2,500 cubic metres per second discharge.
4 MR. MOIR: I'm getting confused here.
5 Are you telling me that the ice cover was limited
6 because it would float above the top of the banks?
7 MR. ANDRES: That's right.
8 MR. MOIR: And that would be all the
9 way down from, say from Lockport down to below
10 highway 44 bridge, that at 2,500 CFS the ice would
11 float out of the channel?
12 MR. ANDRES: Under an ice jam
13 condition, yes.
14 MR. MOIR: Are you sure of that?
15 MR. ANDRES: Yes.
16 MR. MOIR: Absolutely 100 per cent
17 sure of that comment?
18 MR. ANDRES: As best as the
19 information I have before me, I am sure of that,
20 yes.
21 MR. MOIR: So you have some ambiguity
22 there, do you?
23 MR. ANDRES: I am sorry?
24 MR. MOIR: There is some ambiguity in
25 your answer there?
03516
1 MR. ANDRES: No.
2 MR. MOIR: So what you are saying is
3 that the ice floats out of the river channel at
4 2,500 CFS.
5 MR. ANDRES: Once the ice jam forms,
6 yes.
7 MR. MOIR: Okay. And what elevation
8 were you saying that would be at Selkirk?
9 MR. ANDRES: If I can refer to --
10 THE CHAIRMAN: For the record,
11 Mr. Moir, it would be 2,500 cubic metres per
12 second, not CFS.
13 MR. MOIR: Correct, thank you.
14 MR. ANDRES: At about 224 metres.
15 MR. MOIR: Which would be in feet?
16 MR. ANDRES: I don't know.
17 MR. MOIR: It is about 730, isn't it?
18 MR. ANDRES: 730 plus, something like
19 that, yes.
20 MR. MOIR: And the elevation in the
21 recent ice jams, '97, 2004, the peak of water
22 elevation at Selkirk was, at the Selkirk bridge?
23 MR. ANDRES: In the vicinity of 220.5
24 and 222.5.
25 MR. MOIR: I thought it was somewhat
03517
1 higher than that. What's the bottom of the
2 bridge, the Selkirk lift bridge?
3 MR. ANDRES: 222.5.
4 MR. MOIR: The bottom core?
5 MR. ANDRES: The low core of the
6 bridge is 222.5, yes.
7 MR. MOIR: Fourth comment would be
8 towards ambiguity and whatnot. There has been a
9 diversity of opinions described here. In my
10 engineering experience, for example, if you and I
11 were designing a steel structure, there will be no
12 disagreement about what we were talking about,
13 would there be? I mean, we might have some
14 different approaches on how to move the loads
15 around or not, but in terms of the design
16 procedures we were using, there would probably be
17 no ambiguity whatsoever if we were designing a
18 steel structure?
19 MR. ANDRES: I guess design of steel
20 structures are codified to the extent that there
21 will be little room for disagreement on major
22 significant issues.
23 MR. MOIR: And the physics that goes
24 behind designing a steel structure is extremely
25 well defined, is it not?
03518
1 MR. ANDRES: I expect it is. I'm not
2 an expert in that, but I drive across bridges
3 everyday so I presume it's well understood.
4 MR. MOIR: Is it at all possible that
5 some of the ambiguity and differences here are
6 being caused by lack of knowledge in the science,
7 or lack of agreement in the physics, or a lack of
8 understanding in the physics of ice movement and
9 ice jams?
10 MR. ANDRES: Possibly, possibly, yes.
11 MR. MOIR: If there is ambiguity
12 amongst well meaning people, or differences
13 between well meaning people, I mean, in designing
14 a billion dollar project with consequences to
15 human health and safety, wouldn't it be prudent to
16 take the safe course?
17 MR. ANDRES: I think we always would
18 take the safe course, and certainly it would be
19 prudent to do that, yes. That's why we spend 10
20 per cent of the cost of the project in designing
21 it.
22 MR. MOIR: So if there were
23 differences between highly experienced
24 professionals -- I mean, I've designed structures
25 that have been around for 20 years now in high ice
03519
1 environments, I have designed half a dozen
2 structures in the Beaufort Sea that took huge ice
3 loads. You have been researching ice for the
4 Alberta Government for 20 years and you've been a
5 consultant for ten years. You are highly
6 experienced. If you and I are having differing
7 views, is it likely that there is some ambiguity
8 in the science and the engineering behind ice
9 jamming?
10 MR. ANDRES: Well, it's either that,
11 or there's ambiguity in one's understanding of
12 what those processes are when it comes to ice.
13 MR. MOIR: Is that likely in this
14 circumstance, given our professional careers and
15 what we've done?
16 MR. ANDRES: I can't speak, I mean, if
17 you want me to --
18 MR. MOIR: No, I'll speak for myself.
19 I think I understand ice, I think you understand
20 ice.
21 MR. ANDRES: I have met a lot of
22 people who operate in cold regions hydraulics sort
23 of technology who do not have a very good
24 understanding of issues, and who misapply a lot of
25 the theory and a lot of the formula that have been
03520
1 developed over the past, certainly. So, I mean, I
2 guess from my perspective, I think I understand it
3 very well, and I think I have analyzed, and like I
4 say, everything makes sense to me in terms of the
5 lower Red River here. But to say that everybody
6 would necessarily agree with what I say, I would
7 give them the prerogative to disagree.
8 MR. MOIR: That would suggest that the
9 science and engineering isn't well defined,
10 because a knowledgeable professional would be able
11 to go right to the physics and engineering and say
12 that's it. And they might differ on their
13 designs, but at least they will be basing it on
14 the same engineering and same science, would they
15 not?
16 MR. ANDRES: Well, the physics are
17 clear, the formulae are clear, where you would get
18 any sort of a sense of disagreement might be in
19 the application of those formulae, that relates to
20 individual's experience and their ability to
21 conceptualize what major and significant issues
22 are in a particular project.
23 MR. MOIR: I assume that I'm going to
24 have an opportunity to present some of the
25 findings I have got over the last two weeks.
03521
1 THE CHAIRMAN: That wasn't on our
2 agenda. Our agenda today was to hear from
3 Mr. Andres, and give you an opportunity to, if not
4 challenge, at least discuss with Mr. Andres.
5 MR. MOIR: To do so, particularly on
6 the issue of hydrology, I would --
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Could you speak into
8 the microphone please?
9 MR. MOIR: To further the discussion
10 on the hydrology issue, I think there is some
11 comments I would like to make using my computer.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: We'll just take a time
13 out on that.
14 (OFF THE RECORD DISCUSSION)
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Moir, we will allow
16 you to make a presentation as long as it is brief.
17 MR. MOIR: It will be brief.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: So what do you need to
19 do?
20 MR. MOIR: Set up my computer.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Handlon.
22 MR. HANDLON: Sorry to interrupt, but
23 if I could just speak to that matter and perhaps
24 just make sure that the Commission is aware of the
25 evolution of this issue. And just as I understand
03522
1 it, there was the report Mr. Moir was an author
2 in, Conestoga-Rovers, that you saw when we were in
3 Oakbank. There were a number of pages from that
4 report which were authored by Mr. Moir. And if
5 you recall, the analysis in those pages was
6 recitation essentially of what was in the reports,
7 the engineering appendices, that related to ice
8 jamming as authored by Mr. Carson. There was no
9 critique in those pages relating to Mr. Carson's
10 analysis. It was only when Mr. Moir attended that
11 he provided an analysis that was a critique that
12 challenged some of those findings. We went
13 through a cross-examination on Mr. Moir's
14 presentation, although we had just seen it that
15 morning for the first time. And subsequent to
16 that, there was a question as to whether Mr. Moir
17 would meet with Mr. Carson and if he could throw
18 some greater light onto that.
19 My understanding of that was an
20 opportunity of Mr. Moir to meet with Mr. Carson,
21 and if there is something further that he was
22 going to present, that is Mr. Moir, that it would
23 be prepared in writing and submitted.
24 We understand that that meeting did
25 not occur, and although representatives were
03523
1 available to meet with Mr. Moir, that he chose not
2 to continue discussion. We are now here. The
3 Commission has taken perhaps an unusual step, but
4 appropriate step in retaining an outside expert to
5 look at this issue, and we have the presentation.
6 Mr. Moir has been given the right to ask questions
7 of Mr. Andres. But at this stage, I think given
8 the evolution of the history of this matter, that
9 at some point in time there has to be closure on a
10 subject. And given the fact that Mr. Moir chose
11 not to enter into a dialogue that he was invited
12 to, and chose not to present any further analysis,
13 at this stage, how can there be an informed review
14 of what he may have to present? And that's really
15 the question that we have.
16 And I'll certainly leave that to the
17 Commission to make that decision on, but I think
18 that's really the question.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Handlon.
20 We certainly intend to bring closure to this
21 issue. I think, given the nature of how this
22 issue unfolded, I think it's certainly in the
23 interest of the three members of this panel, if
24 not the public, that we get as much information on
25 the table as we can.
03524
1 I realize that, I mean, both having
2 Mr. Andres coming here today, as well as allowing
3 Mr. Moir to make a brief presentation at this time
4 are unusual for our processes. However, as we've
5 said all along, our processes are somewhat more
6 informal than a court room. We will entertain
7 Mr. Moir's presentation. I will insist that it be
8 brief.
9 You and officials of the Floodway
10 Authority will have an opportunity to question
11 Mr. Moir. If there is any information that unduly
12 prejudices your ability to cross-examine him on
13 short notice, I will entertain comments to that
14 effect at that time.
15 Now, Mr. Moir, what do you have to do
16 to make a presentation? Do you have to set up a
17 computer?
18 MR. MOIR: Yes.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: And how long will that
20 take you?
21 MR. MOIR: Five minutes.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: We'll take a five
23 minute break. And I do insist that it be a brief
24 presentation.
25 And Mr. Andres, I would appreciate it
03525
1 if you would either stay there or somewhere so we
2 can ask you questions in respect of Mr. Moir's
3 presentation, or invite your comments on it.
4 MR. ANDRES: I will certainly, yes.
5 (HEARING RECESSED)
6
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Could we come
8 back to order?
9 Mr. Moir, I notice at the bottom of
10 that screen it says 1 of 32 slides. I don't
11 consider that to be brief.
12 MR. MOIR: What I did, Mr. Chairman,
13 was add three or four slides to the top of the
14 other presentation to keep it all in one place.
15 And I actually had nine new slides, but I think I
16 will only talk about four of them.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: I would ask you just to
18 deal with new issues and not revisit your
19 previous --
20 MR. MOIR: Absolutely, 100 per cent.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, you may proceed.
22 MR. MOIR: I'm just going to do this
23 informally too. So I will just allow to move back
24 and forth a little more quickly so I can find the
25 slides.
03526
1 I think there are two points that I am
2 concerned about. I'm not trying to derail or
3 delay in any way whatsoever the floodway. I want
4 to have it done right. And I think there were a
5 couple of issues where the engineering is not
6 wrong, but not complete. And I just want to show
7 two examples, just two narrow messages. I think
8 there are quite a number of issues that need to be
9 addressed, but I'm going to just focus on two.
10 One is the impact of hydrology, what we call the
11 hydrology issue, which is the change in hydrograph
12 shaping from adding more conveyance. This whole
13 issue of the storm water pond and what the impact
14 is on that. I do question the issue of the ice
15 clearing discharge, but I'm not going to get in
16 that today. I may deal with that in writing to
17 save your time, sir.
18 I do understand the operating rules.
19 I do understand the intent of the operating rules.
20 In our discussion that was unfortunately
21 truncated. I was trying to get into conveyance
22 ratios and may have confused, and I apologize.
23 I think the underlying assumption
24 there was the operating rules simply take water
25 that would have been the peak of the hydrograph
03527
1 and put it into the floodway, therefore there was
2 no change. At low flows that may be entirely the
3 case. High flows, when you have flooding over the
4 banks and significant flooding south of the city,
5 I think the situation becomes much more
6 complicated. And this is being picked up in part
7 in the MIKE 11 model, but I'm not sure that it's
8 entirely being picked up. In other words, what
9 I'm saying to you, this is not so much an ice
10 issue, it's a hydrology issue.
11 Mr. Andres has completely demonstrated
12 I think, without putting words into his mouth,
13 that the river downstream of Lockport in terms of
14 ice jamming is delicate. It's a delicate area.
15 And that's all that needs to be said about ice
16 jamming in that area. The issue --
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry, what that word,
18 it's a delicate?
19 MR. MOIR: Delicate, it's a delicate
20 river, that portion of it. When I was here last I
21 made comments about hydrology and storm water
22 ponds, and to help you to clarify that thought, we
23 put together a very straightforward, simple
24 hydrology model using a companion program, the
25 HEC-RAS, which is HEC HMS. HMS gives you how much
03528
1 water, when. RAS gives you what the depth of
2 water is given the water. And we have made a very
3 simple model. At the top of the graph would be
4 the water coming in from upstream. The reservoir,
5 the triangle in that area, would represent the
6 flooded area of Manitoba. The diversion is where
7 the rivers split, where the control structure is,
8 where the floodway entrance is. To the left on
9 that diagram would be the floodway, and then on
10 the right reach 4 is the Red River, and then the
11 junction at Lockport. So what we're trying to do
12 is look at how the floodway moves through this.
13 Now, we put the dimension in of these
14 channels. We put in the operating rules at the
15 diversion for high flow. By the way, we did this
16 on Friday afternoon.
17 We put in several floods in the system
18 under several circumstances. This one is where we
19 are showing a very high flood, very high flood,
20 very high flow rate, total flow. And this isn't
21 simultaneous, this is four different
22 circumstances. And this is why I do not get
23 excited about travel times. The blue line, which
24 is right here, this blue line here represents the
25 hydrograph of the combined Red River and existing
03529
1 floodway.
2 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chair, could we ask
3 the presenter to put it on movie mode so we can at
4 least read some of the figures on this, because we
5 don't have a handout from his presentation.
6 MR. MOIR: Actually, I do have a
7 handout for you.
8 MR. MCNEIL: Can he still put it onto
9 the movie mode though?
10 MR. MOIR: Yeah, I will.
11 Is that clearer? The dark blue line
12 represents what would happen where the current
13 circumstances with the Red River and the existing
14 floodway. It would -- this is the same input
15 hydrograph to the model, this is two output
16 circumstances, this is what would be happening at
17 the output of the model at the outfall of the
18 floodway where the floodway and the river come
19 together.
20 The hydrograph under today's
21 circumstances would peak in this circumstance on
22 about the 8th of May. If putting the same -- now
23 let's expand the floodway as proposed to as in the
24 proposal. The floodway peak, putting the same
25 hydrograph in, would now peak at this larger
03530
1 discharge eight days earlier. It's that eight
2 days that's at issue here. Because in that eight
3 days, the ice in the Red River, according to
4 Mr. Andres and his -- well, he has this plot in
5 there of ice out dates, and it follows a curve
6 trending down when this happens, but it's a two to
7 three week period there between the earliest and
8 the latest ice out. So in this circumstance, one
9 could argue that on average this floodway peak is
10 hitting against rotted ice, whereas this floodway
11 peak is hitting against solid ice, cold ice. And
12 that's the difference. That is the single point
13 that I'm trying to bring to your attention, that
14 expanding the floodway moves the peak of the
15 hydrograph forward.
16 It must do so. This is the whole
17 theory behind storm water detention ponds.
18 If the Manitoba Government decides
19 that this is not the case, then I will gladly
20 quote you for the rest of my career to every
21 client going to the government that says you have
22 to have a storm water detention pond, because I
23 will say no because they have no effect, it has
24 been proven. It's that basic a concept.
25 Now, obviously our model is a good
03531
1 deal simpler than the extensive modeling, I mean,
2 we did it on Friday afternoon. And the various
3 consultants, Klohn-Crippen and Manitoba Water
4 Stewardship have done a considerable amount of
5 modeling since. But even looking at their
6 hydrographs, here is the existing floodway, here
7 is the expanded floodway. The peak is sooner and
8 higher. That's all my point. That has to be
9 resolved. There are other issues with this
10 hydrograph that give me a great deal of concern;
11 for example, this leading edge here. And I will
12 strongly advise that this model be sent out for
13 thorough peer review, which can not be done in
14 three days. We're talking many months of work to
15 thoroughly review this model. That should not
16 halt construction, design, or whatnot, but this
17 model must be reviewed. And I was going to go
18 onto talk about ice cover, but I won't do that at
19 the moment.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Moir.
21 Mr. Andres, do you have any comments on that?
22 Could you speak into the microphone, please?
23 MR. ANDRES: Could you just put the
24 previous slide up for a second, please? It's my
25 understanding that the floodway doesn't become
03532
1 operable until flows at least in excess of
2 1,200 cubic metres per second, which is about
3 50,000 CFS, I guess. And I'm wondering how you
4 can sort of explain the differences?
5 MR. MOIR: Sorry, these are not
6 simultaneous, these are or -- so this is not the
7 floodway running and then -- these are different
8 circumstances.
9 MR. ANDRES: Oh, okay.
10 MR. MOIR: When I went back to this on
11 Monday morning after doing other things on the
12 weekend, I made the same mistake, jumping up and
13 down.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Could somebody explain
15 what that means to us laypersons over here?
16 MR. MOIR: This is not meant to show
17 that this is the amount of water coming down the
18 river and this is the total amount of water. This
19 is a case, totally separate physical case. So
20 this blue line represents what would happen with
21 the existing floodway. This one represents, the
22 purple line, with the separate, entire separate
23 case of an expanded floodway. And this shows you
24 how little more benefit you get by expanding it to
25 400,000 CFS. These are three separate cases.
03533
1 These are not simultaneous flow through the
2 various channels.
3 MR. ANDRES: So what are we to draw
4 from that? I don't understand what the point of
5 that is?
6 MR. MOIR: The peak of the flow is
7 moved earlier, so the peak, the flow is operating
8 with the -- notice the hydrograph is entirely
9 moved forward.
10 MR. ANDRES: Well, from where, though,
11 from what base case?
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order, please,
13 one at a time.
14 MR. MOIR: Operating in stronger ice,
15 that's my point, the ice has not had time to rot
16 in place. That's it.
17 MR. ANDRES: So what is the -- I'm
18 sorry, I can't make very much of that chart,
19 Mr. Chairman. I guess Mr. Moir, I would just ask,
20 what are you comparing, what is the base case here
21 then, and what is the change situation, and which
22 two curves should we compare here to demonstrate
23 the fact that the floodway in fact exacerbates
24 flows downstream? That's all I'm asking. And I'm
25 not sure that -- I sort of can't see that chart
03534
1 telling me anything like that.
2 MR. MOIR: Well, this is a hydrology
3 issue, this is why I ask about hydrology modeling.
4 This is compare blue to purple. Blue is the way
5 it is now, this one is the way it is now. This is
6 the way the proposal would show, which is the same
7 thing that the actual MIKE modeling is showing.
8 What I'm saying is this is not so much
9 an ice issue as a hydrology issue.
10 Now this blue line here, down here --
11 well, actually the base case was way down here,
12 but we couldn't model that because we don't have
13 enough geometry information to show what was
14 happening within the city.
15 MR. ANDRES: So, again, I guess the
16 next question I have is, which two curves
17 represent the same flood?
18 MR. MOIR: They are the same flood.
19 MR. ANDRES: All the curves are the
20 same flood?
21 MR. MOIR: All have the same input
22 hydrograph. They are modified by the presence of
23 the reservoir, the flooded area. This is the
24 storm water pond issue. You put in a very spiky
25 curve in the upstream end of a pond, you get a
03535
1 flatter curve on the outside. What you get out
2 depends on the controls at the downstream end.
3 MR. ANDRES: Exactly, yes. But if for
4 example the elevation of the reservoir does not
5 change between the two cases, would you still
6 expect a change until the outflow hydrograph?
7 MR. MOIR: Sorry?
8 MR. ANDRES: If the reservoir
9 elevation does not change. As it does according
10 to the rule 1 operating criteria --
11 MR. MOIR: We're way past rule 1 here.
12 MR. ANDRES: So we're out of the --
13 MR. MOIR: We're past, we are into the
14 situation where we have extreme floods here.
15 MR. ANDRES: Well --
16 MR. MOIR: This would get us into ice
17 clearing discharge, which is the other side of the
18 argument. And I actually did some calculations on
19 that too, but it may be better to deal in writing
20 on that one.
21 MR. ANDRES: Yes. I guess my comment
22 on this, Mr. Chairman, would be in terms of my
23 analysis, it showed definitively that once we're
24 into the rule 2 operating situation, the issues of
25 ice are virtually non-existent downstream because
03536
1 of the fact that the ice clearing discharge has
2 been exceeded, and so this may in fact be correct,
3 but it has really no bearing on terms of the ice
4 conditions downstream.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: So Mr. Andres, just to
6 pursue that a little bit more, in a rule 2
7 situation, you're saying that the ice will have
8 cleared?
9 MR. ANDRES: That's correct, yes.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Is that because there's
11 just so much more water that it's blowing it out?
12 MR. ANDRES: That's right.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: In simple terms?
14 MR. ANDRES: Yes. Rule 2 comes into
15 play at very high floods, and it does not actually
16 start to be invoked until the flow is in excess of
17 4,500 cubic metres per second or thereabouts. And
18 after that point, the issue related to ice in the
19 vicinity of Selkirk is not an issue anymore. The
20 ice has been cleared out long before that occurs.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Moir,
22 do you have this type of graphing for a 1997 level
23 flood?
24 MR. MOIR: No. As I said, we did this
25 to clarify, to give -- this is a Friday afternoon
03537
1 exercise, to put numbers around the circumstance,
2 to help people visualize what we're talking about,
3 why the whole business of travel time and a few
4 hours difference is not relevant. It's the eight
5 days that's relevant.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
7 MR. MOIR: That's the single point
8 here.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. McNeil
10 or Mr. Carson?
11 MR. MCNEIL: Just a couple of
12 questions. You keep referring to the floodway
13 situation as storm water detention pond, which is
14 typical drainage management technique in
15 municipalities; is that correct?
16 MR. MOIR: I'm trying to provide it in
17 simple language to help the layperson.
18 MR. MCNEIL: Okay. Can you answer my
19 question?
20 MR. MOIR: Do I keep referring to it
21 as a storm water pond?
22 MR. MCNEIL: Yes.
23 MR. MOIR: Yes, I do.
24 MR. MCNEIL: And storm water retention
25 ponds are typically drainage management techniques
03538
1 for urban centres?
2 MR. MOIR: No, not necessarily at all.
3 I'm putting one in a rural area right now for a
4 very large basin.
5 MR. MCNEIL: Are they storm water
6 management techniques?
7 MR. MOIR: They are a storm water
8 management technique.
9 MR. MCNEIL: Based on the graph that
10 you've put up there -- forget about the X axis and
11 the Y axis and what those numbers mean, which of
12 the two curves would you pick for inflow and
13 outflow hydrographs?
14 MR. MOIR: Neither, these are all
15 outflow hydrographs.
16 MR. MCNEIL: I see.
17 MR. MOIR: The inflow hydrograph for
18 this very simple case are all identical. What I'm
19 showing is the impact of having the flooded area
20 upstream. Taking into account, this takes into
21 account the rules how the floodway is operating.
22 This is why you have the knees in the curve here.
23 We are trying to present something here, a very
24 simple concept to get people to think about what
25 they are saying in that MIKE 11 model, and look
03539
1 very carefully at it. Because this has a serious
2 effect. This eight days difference could
3 potentially have an enormous impact on that very
4 delicate part of the river downstream. That's the
5 simple, that's it.
6 MR. MCNEIL: Well, for the benefit of
7 the Commission and the public, maybe you should
8 turn to page 18 of your presentation, or the
9 previous, based on the handout, the previous
10 graph.
11 MR. MOIR: Which one are we talking
12 about?
13 MR. MCNEIL: Well, in the handout you
14 gave me it says page 18 of your presentation.
15 MR. MOIR: What's on that?
16 MR. MCNEIL: MIKE 11 hydrograph, 700
17 year flood.
18 MR. MOIR: Oh, that's from your
19 appendix A.
20 MR. MCNEIL: And what are you
21 demonstrating here by including this?
22 MR. MOIR: What I'm saying is that
23 your MIKE 11 model is showing the same effect.
24 The existing floodway here, you are moving the
25 peak earlier and higher.
03540
1 MR. MCNEIL: Okay. And what flow is
2 that?
3 MR. MOIR: That's 200,000, that was
4 your, I believe that was your one in 200 year
5 event.
6 MR. MCNEIL: But I heard Mr. Andres
7 indicate that ice jams don't exist beyond
8 90,000 cubic feet per second?
9 MR. MOIR: That was the second part of
10 what I was going to present here. I have of lot
11 of questions about that, whether the ice jams,
12 whether the ice cover would or would not be stable
13 in that part of the river under all circumstances.
14 I find it difficult to -- how do I put
15 this? In a project of this magnitude, with this
16 much at risk in terms of dollar and human safety,
17 to categorically state that there will be no ice
18 whatsoever under any circumstances in that lower
19 part of the river, given these kind of changes in
20 the hydrograph, I find it difficult to make.
21 The safe, prudent course would be to
22 design this floodway for assuming ice condition in
23 that part of the river. Because if you, I think
24 if you looked at, I go down to my last slide in
25 this presentation, second last slide in the
03541
1 presentation. I think if you go through this,
2 what I'm saying is that here is the data from the
3 1826 flood, right in here. And I would say that
4 there was an ice jam feed here, and from this
5 point back there was backwater. If you assume the
6 hydrograph with expanded floodway moving earlier,
7 acting against solid ice, there is a probability,
8 there is a possibility it will flood Winnipeg
9 through the back door, and that has to be
10 considered. I'm saying what is the prudent course
11 to do here.
12 There are many things that could be
13 done to stop that from happening, and I would
14 think that the Floodway Authority sort of adopt
15 the prudent course and design for a situation that
16 may happen. It's not a big deal. They simply
17 have to acknowledge the fact that this may be an
18 issue, and that prudent course for our human
19 safety issue, talking flooding people out here,
20 and these floods happen suddenly, the prudent
21 course is design a fail safe approach.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Carson.
23 MR. MOIR: Mr. Chairman, I
24 recognize --
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Just let them consult.
03542
1 MR. MOIR: I was going to --
2 Mr. Chairman, I recognize that what I'm saying has
3 some technical issues and they may need time to
4 think about this. It may be better for, towards
5 working towards a solution on this, it might be
6 better if they had some time to think about it.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: We don't have a lot of
8 time, Mr. Moir, with all due respect. So,
9 Mr. Carson, do you have a question or two or
10 three?
11 MR. CARSON: Yes. I'd like to ask a
12 question on the first hydrographs that you put up,
13 and I don't know at what sheet it is but it's the
14 one with the hydrographs. I guess I'm still
15 trying to sort out in my mind exactly what this
16 means. And I guess the first question I would
17 have is that you have, apparently it's different
18 outflow hydrographs, depending on what the
19 configuration at the floodway is. So there's
20 quite different rising limbs of the hydrograph,
21 and I think Mr. Andres was going in the right
22 direction there. The point is that the floodway,
23 whether it's expanded or existing, does not start
24 to pass flow until at least 40,000 CFS. Yet on
25 your axis there, you show diversely different
03543
1 rising limbs of the hydrograph below 40,000 CFS.
2 Can you try to explain to me how that relates to
3 the reality of the floodway?
4 MR. MOIR: The point that I'm trying
5 to make is in this area here, not this area down
6 here. As I said, we did this on a Friday
7 afternoon, not over three or four years, we did
8 this on a Friday afternoon, trying to show what
9 the impact was. I was trying to say in my earlier
10 testimony that the effect of the expanded floodway
11 would be to remove the peak sooner and higher
12 against stronger ice.
13 The model -- I'm not saying this model
14 is perfect at all, I'm sure there are issues down
15 here, because we applied very simple situations
16 down there.
17 MR. CARSON: Well, I guess I would
18 submit that it's so simplified that it really is
19 not applicable to the situation. It's difficult
20 to argue with a concept that is so different than
21 reality that it's just not appropriate, and that's
22 my view.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jonasson, what is
24 it you wish to say at this time?
25 MR. JONASSON: What I am wanting to
03544
1 say is that we have experts here arguing over
2 models. Isn't it time that we took the time to do
3 the research and to answer the question, is
4 whatever CFS, ice clearing -- we have some data
5 where we can correlate ice jams with the floodway
6 and its flows and so on. But like everything else
7 north of the outflow, there is no data. We have
8 been asking forever to get that data. And I think
9 that what we need is, over the period of time it
10 will take to get the floodway expansion going and
11 under construction, that some good research is
12 done with respect to ice jamming and the problems
13 that people have downstream of the floodway. It
14 is a terrible situation.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jonasson, you sound
16 as if you're getting into your closing comments
17 which you're going to do this afternoon. It's
18 certainly open to you, and I expect you to make
19 those kinds of recommendations in your closing
20 comments.
21 Do you have any further questions of
22 Mr. Moir?
23 MR. CARSON: Not really a question,
24 just I'd like to clarify here that what Mr. Moir's
25 information is showing is a comparison between a
03545
1 model that was put together in a few hours on
2 Friday afternoon to a numerical model of the Red
3 Sea that cost several hundred thousands of dollars
4 to develop, used all the latest technology, and is
5 deemed to be the best that the state of the art
6 can provide. And it gives quite diverse results
7 from what Mr. Moir is reporting. And I just don't
8 see the point of comparing.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: I'd make the same
10 comment to you that I just made to Mr. Jonasson,
11 that is certainly open to you or other Floodway
12 Authority officials to make that kind of statement
13 in your closing statements tomorrow morning.
14 MR. CARSON: Fair enough.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Any further questions
16 at this time?
17 MR. ANDRES: Could I have one last
18 question?
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I was going to
20 give you an opportunity to make any closing
21 comments. Commissioner Webster has a question of
22 Mr. Moir, I believe.
23 MR. ANDRES: Okay.
24 MR. WEBSTER: I have a couple of
25 questions. First of all for Mr. Moir; the major
03546
1 issue that you are presenting, or the major piece
2 of information you are giving us here I think
3 Mr. Moir is the time difference, on your simple
4 model graph, between the use of the existing
5 floodway and the use of the expanded floodway.
6 Correct?
7 MR. MOIR: Correct.
8 MR. WEBSTER: Have you run the same
9 simple model with 100 year, 120 year, 225 year
10 floods?
11 MR. MOIR: No, we ran it at 170 and
12 250, 170,000 CFS and 250,000 CFS.
13 MR. WEBSTER: Because the point I
14 guess that I want to follow up on then is that
15 given that the first part of the graph doesn't
16 follow reality in terms of the way the floodway is
17 operated --
18 MR. MOIR: It's close.
19 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. The question is,
20 would the peak differences, the peak time
21 differences still be there if you put those
22 restrictions into the model?
23 MR. MOIR: Very little. There is an
24 eight day difference here. If this part was
25 changed, the difference might be a day, at most.
03547
1 MR. WEBSTER: So it can still be six
2 days.
3 MR. MOIR: That's an important
4 question because I'm not going to come to you here
5 and give you something that's misleading. This is
6 an issue that's important. I'm not going to say
7 it's eight days when it really could be three or
8 two or something.
9 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. Thank you.
10 Mr. Andres, I wanted to ask you this. The issue
11 then is the effect of a time difference, whether
12 or not it's an accurate reflection of reality, the
13 issue is a time difference. And we are talking
14 in, not quite conjecture here, but we're talking
15 conceptually as to what the effect would be.
16 Given time effect is the message that
17 Mr. Moir is trying to give us here, and assuming
18 that it changes the same, that the changes are of
19 a similar nature through other sized floods, I'm
20 building --
21 MR. ANDRES: Conceptually, yes.
22 MR. WEBSTER: -- a conceptual story
23 here. Are you still confident in what you're
24 telling us about the effect of the flows that you
25 have looked at on the removal of ice downstream
03548
1 sufficient to prevent ice jamming?
2 MR. ANDRES: Yes, I am, sir.
3 MR. WEBSTER: And so in spite of the
4 fact there's a few days difference, your feeling
5 is that the ice would be affected the way you've
6 been describing in your presentation?
7 MR. ANDRES: That's correct, sir. The
8 time delay only occurs, if in fact there is a time
9 delay, and I guess the MIKE 11 simulations does
10 show a bit of increase in the peak, that is well
11 after most of the ice related issues would have
12 been resolved by the high flow downstream of the
13 floodway.
14 Just to make a comment if I might, as
15 part of answering your question about this
16 particular chart here, I think I finally figured
17 out what it says. And I'm not so sure that it's
18 actually correct in how it demonstrates what
19 Mr. Moir wants to demonstrate. What we have here
20 is we have a flood that's 250,000 CFS, and we have
21 a finite volume of water moving down the river.
22 And that volume of water has to be conserved. And
23 by looking at those various charts there, it
24 appears to me that some of those hydrographs
25 reflect a much larger flow than some of the other
03549
1 graphs do, so there doesn't seem to be a
2 conservation of flow here, I guess, over the
3 length of the flood. Perhaps Mr. Moir can comment
4 on that. But to me it sort of, I guess it
5 violates conservation of mass a little bit, if in
6 fact those four hydrographs are meant to
7 demonstrate how a particular natural inflow might
8 be changed because of floodway operation.
9 MR. WEBSTER: Just so I understand
10 what you're saying, are you saying the area under
11 the curve, the two curves should be the same?
12 MR. ANDRES: Should be the same.
13 MR. WEBSTER: The area under the blue
14 and the area under the purple curve should be the
15 same?
16 MR. ANDRES: Yes, that is correct.
17 MR. WEBSTER: They represent the same
18 amount of water?
19 MR. ANDRES: All, the curves should
20 have the same area under them.
21 MR. WEBSTER: Well, in fact the middle
22 two apparently relate to the 250 CFS flood. The
23 bottom one apparently relates to an 80,000 CFS
24 flood, and the top one apparently relates to a
25 400,000 CFS flood -- or unless it says floodway?
03550
1 You can see it as well as I can.
2 MR. ANDRES: Then I guess I still
3 don't understand the nature of the chart, I'm
4 sorry.
5 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you.
6 MR. MOIR: The model, the HMS model
7 gives you a check at the bottom line, conservation
8 of volume number. All the hydrology models do
9 that, it's a basic thing. You always check that
10 right at the bottom, how much water the model lost
11 or gained, and you want a fraction of a fraction
12 of a per cent. It's a basic check.
13 MR. WEBSTER: Well, I guess the flow
14 rates are in fact flow rates, and what we just
15 discussed was volume of water being the same under
16 each curve; is that correct?
17 MR. MOIR: That's correct.
18 MR. WEBSTER: So, in fact, this is a
19 very, very superficial look at something which may
20 indicate that there's a problem there. We're not
21 quite sure from what the discussion has been as to
22 whether in fact there is anything of significance
23 there. But the point that you're making,
24 Mr. Moir, is there's a difference in the arrival
25 of the peak of the flow, according to the way you
03551
1 have modelled this. And the point that Mr. Andres
2 is making is that in spite of that, he feels there
3 is enough water there to move out any ice that
4 could be causing a problem in the channel.
5 MR. ANDRES: That's correct, yes.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Moir and
7 Mr. Jonasson.
8 MR. HANDLON: Mr. Chair.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
10 MR. HANDLON: Just a point, Mr. Carson
11 may want to respond, and I think, and it's not in
12 the matter of argument because Mr. Carson wouldn't
13 be arguing at the conclusion, in any event. But
14 it's just the opportunity, had this evidence been
15 presented in a normal course, then he could have
16 spoken to it on Monday. So if he has anything to
17 add it to it, Mr. Andres had said, if he would be
18 given that opportunity, I'd appreciate that.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: He will be given that
20 opportunity. Does he have any more questions or
21 comments for Mr. Moir?
22 MR. HANDLON: No.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Moir, Mr. Jonasson
24 then thank you very much. Mr. Moir, thank you for
25 coming back to Winnipeg, and you have helped us a
03552
1 little bit in further understanding this issue.
2 Mr. Carson.
3 MR. CARSON: You know, frankly, I
4 don't know where to start. I feel that the simple
5 model that Mr. Moir showed is just absolutely not
6 applicable. He's comparing apples to oranges.
7 And the point that Mr. Andres made I think is the
8 correct view of reality.
9 The point is that in rule 1 operation,
10 which extends up to flows exceeding the 1997 flood
11 flow, at least for the expanded floodway, and
12 nearly that for the existing floodway, that is
13 more than twice the discharge that has ever been
14 known in the last 50 years for ice to remain on
15 the river.
16 So whether there is any small change
17 in the arrival of the peak of the flood of such
18 huge magnitude, and whether it affects ice is
19 totally irrelevant, in my view.
20 The point is that in rule 1 operation,
21 the water level is held as it would have been in
22 the state of nature. So there can be no change,
23 no difference in the state of nature in terms of
24 outflow downstream. I think Mr. Andres made the
25 point that there's a conservation of mass that has
03553
1 to be respected, and there just is no change in
2 outflow that would affect ice conditions
3 downstream.
4 I would welcome the opportunity to be
5 able to analyze the information that Mr. Moir has
6 provided, and perhaps see the model that he has
7 tried to simplify the situation with, and perhaps
8 give other comments. But, you know, I just don't
9 know where to start. It's just not reality.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Carson.
11 Mr. Andres, do you have any final
12 comments you wish to make in respect of your
13 presentation?
14 MR. ANDRES: Yes. The analysis that I
15 did to support the conclusions and recommendations
16 that I made essentially, in a shorthand way,
17 reviewed and checked the analysis that was
18 undertaken by the Floodway Authority in terms of
19 their technical support to the application for the
20 expansion of the floodway. In no way did it
21 suggest that those calculations weren't correct.
22 I think the assumptions that were made were
23 reasonable in that analysis. And when I did the
24 checks with my own assumptions, starting from
25 scratch, not using information that was provided
03554
1 by the Floodway Authority, I found that I could
2 reconcile my conclusions with theirs.
3 So in that sense, Mr. Chairman, I
4 think that the analysis is correct. And in fact,
5 I didn't have the ability to check the more
6 sophisticated MIKE 11 unsteady flow analysis, but
7 it also reconciled with my analysis in terms of
8 general changes to the system that we might
9 anticipate.
10 And then I have to just simply say
11 again that on the basis of my analysis there is no
12 indication to suggest that the floodway is going
13 to exacerbate ice conditions downstream of the
14 floodway. And in spite of the fact that there may
15 be some arguments about what is the most relevant
16 process, or how we may do certain calculations, I
17 think that the errors -- or not the errors, but
18 the difference of opinion that people may have in
19 terms of the critical components of the ice
20 break-up processes do not lead to the conclusion
21 that any changes in operations would occur to
22 flows that are relevant to ice jams and ice
23 jamming in the reach downstream.
24 Therefore, I again have to stand by my
25 conclusion that the floodway will be essentially
03555
1 innocuous in its implications on the flows and on
2 the ice jam levels and on the break-up processes
3 downstream of the floodway outlet. And that
4 basically concludes my comments on this issue.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much,
6 Mr. Andres. And I'd like to particularly thank
7 you for being able to, and being willing to take
8 on this little project on very short notice, and
9 help us in understanding this issue that's very
10 critical to a number of the people who live
11 downstream of the floodway outlet.
12 I'd just like to set the record
13 straight. In your opening comments you said you
14 made the report to the Manitoba Floodway
15 Authority, when in fact the report was, as
16 distributed here yesterday, was made to me as
17 chair of the Clean Environment Commission.
18 MR. ANDRES: I'm sorry, yes, that's
19 correct. I had sent it to you.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much,
21 and thank you again for making your time available
22 in coming here to Winnipeg today.
23 MR. ANDRES: Thank you, sir.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe we should take a
25 five minute break while the -- or a ten minute
03556
1 break while the court reporters switch over, and
2 then we will hear from Mr. Carson following the
3 break. Come back about five to 11:00.
4
5 (Proceedings adjourned at 10:42 a.m.
6 and reconvened at 10:55 a.m.)
7
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Come back to
9 order, please. We now have Mr. Rick Carson, on
10 behalf of Floodway Authority that will be
11 responding to an undertaking made a couple of days
12 ago. Mr. Carson.
13 MR. CARSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
14 The undertaking was essentially to make a sort of
15 the back of the envelope evaluation of what
16 improvements might be made to the expanded
17 floodway to try to reduce the extent of artificial
18 flooding that could occur under rule 4. And
19 before I get into some of these technical slides
20 that I have to speak to that issue, I wanted to
21 make it clear that from the engineering point of
22 view in the project definition and environmental
23 assessment, there were no efforts made towards
24 looking at improving the floodway for summer water
25 level control, because at that point in time that
03557
1 was off the table, it was not part of the project.
2 So what you are seeing is cobbling together
3 information that we had on this issue over the
4 years, and try and make some perspective on it.
5 Okay. So how I proceeded here to try
6 to demonstrate the issues that have come up, are I
7 looked at rule 4, and what it really means. And
8 essentially to distill it right down to the bare
9 bones, it means if the water level in the Red
10 River were to rise as high as elevation 14 feet
11 James, that's about I guess six or seven feet
12 above normal level, then the intent would be if
13 storms are imminent in the next week or ten days
14 or so, the floodway would be activated by raising
15 the gates at the inlet and the flow would be
16 diverted around Winnipeg so that the water level
17 in Winnipeg would be decreased by about five feet
18 or down to James nine feet. Now, what that means
19 in terms of river flow rates is that prior to the
20 operation, under this rule 4 initiative, the river
21 flow would be about 1,050 cubic metres per second
22 or roughly 30,000 CFS, that may vary plus or minus
23 a thousand, depending on the Assiniboine River
24 contribution and so on. I think that's a pretty
25 accurate characterization.
03558
1 Under those conditions prior to the
2 operation, the state of nature at the inlet would
3 be about elevation 227.8 metres, just from the
4 state of nature rating curve that's been developed
5 recently, and that's about elevation 747 feet. So
6 that's about two and a half feet below the lip
7 elevation at the entrance to the floodway. So I'm
8 just painting a picture here of these conditions,
9 and I am going to go into the hydraulics of how
10 this would change if the floodway were changed to
11 accommodate this rule 4.
12 Now in order to achieve that reduction
13 of water level at James Avenue down to nine feet,
14 you would have to divert approximately 500 cubic
15 metres per second or 18,000 CFS into the floodway.
16 And that's just a physical reality of hydraulics
17 of the situation.
18 Now I'm just going to park those facts
19 there for a second and look at what we hydraulic
20 engineers call rating curve at the floodway inlet.
21 So this relates on the vertical scale, the
22 elevation at the floodway inlet. So on the left
23 hand side the elevation is indicated in metres of
24 water level, and on the right hand side it is in
25 feet of water level. So this rating curve
03559
1 indicates for any given water level upstream how
2 much water could be pushed into the floodway or
3 diverted around Winnipeg.
4 Now, we have different colours showing
5 up here. The blue dashed line indicates the
6 rating curve of the existing floodway as it exists
7 right now as we speak. So what it would indicate
8 is that at elevation, let's say elevation 232, it
9 would be required at the inlet to push 750 cubic
10 metres per second into the floodway. So that's
11 the blue dash line. The other lines, there is a
12 dashed -- rather a red line that indicates a
13 similar characteristic for the expanded floodway.
14 So you can see it a very thin red line that
15 continues on up. And at the high levels you get a
16 substantial increase in discharge capacity, and
17 that's all what the floodway expansion is about.
18 The green dashed line, or the long
19 dash/short dash line there, indicates the expanded
20 floodway if the lip were to be removed. And I got
21 a bit of indication down here as to what the
22 extent of the lip is and how much it would take to
23 remove it. The lip elevation, as I said earlier,
24 is about elevation 750 feet or elevation 228.6
25 metres, so that is at this point on the curve, and
03560
1 if the lip is not removed, the water level has to
2 be at least that to put even one cubic foot per
3 second down the floodway.
4 Now, the lip height I guess, if you
5 want to think in those terms, is about roughly 2.1
6 metres or 7 feet high, and the base of the
7 existing channel or the expanded channel for that
8 matter, is about elevation 226.5, I believe it is,
9 or 743 feet. So, if that lip were to be totally
10 removed, the rating curve would be adjusted
11 downwards to this green line, and that would
12 indicate how much water could be pushed into the
13 floodway for any water levels. But you can see at
14 the lower range, if the lip does not exist, you
15 can indeed get more water into the floodway to the
16 tune of about, oh, 125 cubic metres per second if
17 the water level at the inlet were elevation
18 roughly 750 feet.
19 What this shows is that as the water
20 level rises above the lip elevation, it is
21 somewhat irrelevant as to whether the lip exists
22 or not. So at elevation, let's say 231 metres, I
23 don't know exactly what that is in feet, it is
24 probably about 757 or 758, there is almost
25 immeasurable difference in the amount of water
03561
1 that can be put through the floodway.
2 So, going back to the facts that I
3 presented a few minutes ago, where under the
4 classic rule 4 invoking, the amount of water that
5 would have to be pushed around Winnipeg to lower
6 the water level within the city to 9 James would
7 be about 500 cubic metres per second. So the
8 upstream water level, therefore, must be
9 approximately 230.8 metres, or 757.2 feet, and
10 plus or minus an inch or two, whether the lip
11 exists or not. It is almost irrelevant whether
12 the lip exists for that particular condition.
13 Now I will move into an area where I'm
14 going to build a bit of a picture of what the
15 hydraulics, hydraulic conditions are for the
16 expanded floodway and then show how it might be
17 improved to reduce that water level that I just
18 showed you on the previous slide. So what I'm
19 showing here is a graphical depiction of water
20 surface profiles down the floodway. So we have
21 the floodway inlet over the left hand side of the
22 graph, we have the floodway outlet over on the
23 right hand side of the graph. This is a highly
24 distorted scale that ranges from elevation 220 say
25 down at the bottom here up to elevation 240. But,
03562
1 over a horizontal scale of 50,000 metres or 50
2 kilometres, so it is an extremely distorted scale.
3 The lower black line is the invert of the original
4 design of the floodway and it will be sort of the
5 intended design of the expanded floodway. So it
6 gives you the profile right through down to the
7 outlet structure. I show the lip elevation just
8 as a spike here, at this scale it appears as a
9 spike, in reality it is quite a broad weir. The
10 blue line above that is the shoulder of the top of
11 the low flow channel and the start of the main
12 channel that spreads out to a width of some
13 540 feet, or 180 metres if memories serves. And
14 then, of course, these lines above that indicate
15 the amount of water, or rather the water surface
16 profile for various flood magnitudes. So that
17 magic 540 cubic metres per second is the lower
18 line I'm showing in the thin red line, and that
19 would be the profile starting at that elevation,
20 230.8 metres at the inlet. Okay.
21 So I've run through this. Really just
22 to summarize, to pass that 500 cubic metres per
23 second the water level must be raised up to
24 approximately 755.9 feet with the lip and just
25 fractionally lower than that without the lip. I'm
03563
1 showing about a tenth of a foot. It is very
2 difficult to actually calculate much of a
3 difference at that magnitude. I guess the point
4 is that this is still, or this is about 2.6 metres
5 above the state of nature, whether the lip exists
6 or it doesn't exist, still the water level has to
7 be raised that amount to get that amount of water
8 into the floodway. So the question arises, how
9 could the floodway be improved over what we have
10 planned for the expansion now in order to reduce
11 that amount of artificial flooding, let's call it.
12 And another point is that even with
13 that artificial flooding it is still somewhat
14 academic, because it is still four feet below or
15 1.2 metres below the top of the bank.
16 Let's look at channel improvements
17 here and see what could be achieved by making some
18 changes in the floodway expansion concept. So the
19 first one would be to remove that inlet lip, even
20 though it really doesn't play much of a picture
21 there. Let's remove that. And let's deepen by
22 about a metre at the inlet, and flatten the
23 channel profile to as far as the TransCanada
24 highway, so that's about close to ten miles.
25 And what I'm going to do is show this
03564
1 graphically here. What I'm suggesting here, or at
2 least this option that we considered, to try to
3 put a perspective on this is we would lower the
4 channel such that at the inlet it would be
5 deepened by about one metre or three feet roughly,
6 and then it would be horizontal over to the
7 TransCanada highway. So we have a wedge of
8 excavation in there that's some 10 or 12 miles
9 long. And we leave the low flow channel as it is.
10 And really that's the case that I'm considering.
11 So the benefit of that when you go
12 through the analysis -- oh, I should go back here.
13 The benefit of that would be the reduction in the
14 water surface profile from the old profile that I
15 showed here as this light red line, down to the
16 lower red line. So it is about, a reduction at
17 the inlet of about .4 metres, or close to a foot
18 and a half, or say 15 inches or so. So that would
19 be really what is being achieved by that
20 particular modification.
21 So now I will look at what the costs
22 and benefits might be. So as I say, it was about
23 a reduction of .4 metres, still well above 2.2
24 metres above the state of nature, 6.9 feet.
25 Now the cost, because the inlet or the
03565
1 weir or the lip serves the purpose of keeping ice
2 out of the floodway, and it serves the purpose of
3 not having the floodway wetted every year
4 essentially, when the water level might be high
5 enough to cause water to flow into the floodway,
6 but still not be high enough to require the
7 invoking of rule 4. So we need a structure to
8 serve that purpose. And it is difficult to know
9 exactly, on sort of the short amount of time that
10 we had to consider it, but our feeling is we are
11 looking at a structure that's at least $3 million,
12 possibly as much as $5 million to construct that
13 over the full width of the inlet weir, or the old
14 inlet weir that would removed for this. It would
15 require about 1.2 million cubic metres of
16 excavation of clay down as far as the TransCanada
17 highway crossing. And that would be deemed as
18 deepening of the floodway. But it is in that
19 upper zone where it is all in clay, and we don't
20 think there would be major issues with
21 groundwater, but still that question hangs out
22 there. And the cost of that excavation would be
23 about $4 million.
24 Now, because we are making the channel
25 essentially deeper, now we would have to look at
03566
1 it in detail, but I believe if we were to do that,
2 that the Seine River syphon would have to have the
3 low conduit modified. And that comes at a price
4 tag of at least $2 million.
5 So the total of that, when you add in
6 engineering and contingency and so on, we are
7 looking at a cost that is well above $10 million,
8 probably 12 to $14 million for such a fairly
9 modest change to the floodway expansion concept.
10 And the benefit, again, is difficult
11 to quantify just in a short space of time, but we
12 looked at the report that we produced for the
13 province that assessed the benefits and costs of
14 summer water level control, and from that we are
15 able to say that the benefits are clearly, in
16 terms of reduction of compensation and buyouts of
17 property and so on, clearly well less than
18 $3 million. But we will be magnanimous here and
19 say that the benefit could be as much as
20 $3 million. So really for this modest change we
21 are talking about a cost of close to $14 million,
22 and a benefit of less than $3 million in reduced
23 impacts upstream. We are still well over the
24 state of nature by a fairly wide margin, it still
25 requires the use of the floodway gates, and it
03567
1 still has the fish and riverbank stability issues.
2 So our conclusion, based on this, is there is not
3 much merit in this sort of endeavor.
4 I admit there are other options that
5 could be considered that would have different
6 benefits, different costs, but I would be very
7 surprised if it could be shown that we could get
8 the benefits close to what the costs would be.
9 Now, there are a few slides that Water
10 Stewardship has prepared to show the -- or tried
11 to demonstrate the relatively minor effects of the
12 inlet weir or the lip, as it existed in the 2004
13 event. Would you like to see those? There are
14 about three or four slides that they put together.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Please.
16 MR. CARSON: I'm not terribly familiar
17 with these, but I guess the concept that is being
18 shown is that there is a bit of a cross-section
19 through the entrance to the floodway. So we have
20 got the Red River out here, shown sort of as a
21 rectangular, it is not rectangular, but for the
22 demonstration purposes I guess it is realistic.
23 We have got the inlet weir, at least a slice
24 through the inlet weir shown over here. And what
25 is demonstrated in this first slide is actually --
03568
1 I guess it is 2001, sorry, it is not 2004 -- it
2 was April 7, 2001, and the water level at the
3 floodway inlet was just a foot above the crest
4 elevation, or the lip elevation, and there had
5 been just a trickle of water into the floodway, so
6 the downstream water level was only about
7 746.5 feet. And it doesn't say exactly how much
8 flow was going in there, but it would be a very
9 small amount of water passing over the lip for
10 that condition.
11 So for that condition, I think it
12 would be quite clear that if the lip were removed,
13 there could be a substantial amount more water
14 passed into the floodway.
15 But then as the stage rises, now we
16 are two feet, or almost three feet above the crest
17 elevation of the weir, now you see the downstream
18 water level rising dramatically. These are
19 actually measured water levels upstream of the
20 floodway inlet and at St. Mary's Road bridge. So
21 there is about a kilometre or so, or maybe a
22 little less than a kilometre difference between
23 the two. But you see as these slides progress
24 that that difference reduces significantly,
25 indicating that the weir is really playing very
03569
1 little effect in controlling the flow that goes
2 into the floodway. So as the water level rises,
3 so does that differential. At this point in time,
4 if the weir did not exist, the water level
5 upstream would be reduced very nominally.
6 And similarly the higher you go, the
7 less -- I guess that's it. So I guess that's the
8 point that has tried to be made by the Water
9 Stewardship slides.
10 Any questions on that?
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Barrie?
12 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you, Mr. Carson.
13 I'm presuming that you are giving this as a
14 typical rule 4 type of operation?
15 MR. CARSON: Yes, I zoomed
16 specifically to the conditions that would cause
17 the invoking of rule 4. And there are, of course,
18 higher flood flows that could occur. But we
19 thought through that, and what it does, it more
20 amply demonstrates the fact that the costs greatly
21 exceed the benefits.
22 MR. WEBSTER: Let's just look at that
23 for a minute. Was that benefit an annual benefit
24 or an overall benefit?
25 MR. CARSON: No, that was the present
03570
1 value of future, 50 years of benefits.
2 MR. WEBSTER: I see. So it is
3 integrated over that period?
4 MR. CARSON: Right. So we are
5 comparing a capital cost in the 14 million versus
6 the present value of future benefits.
7 MR. WEBSTER: Let's look at that a
8 little bit. My understanding from what you have
9 said is that the river is still within its banks
10 under those circumstances?
11 MR. CARSON: That's right.
12 MR. WEBSTER: Does that mean there are
13 no residences within the danger zone if you
14 perform that particular exercise?
15 MR. CARSON: That's correct. The only
16 thing that is affected would be the market garden,
17 some market garden operations, and possibly some
18 dry crop farming operations. Although I
19 shouldn't -- that's a possibility, I'm not
20 convinced that it would be at those elevations.
21 MR. WEBSTER: And in cases where
22 people had landscaped down towards the river, that
23 would also be affected?
24 MR. CARSON: Yes, that's true.
25 MR. WEBSTER: But the residences
03571
1 themselves are well above that level?
2 MR. CARSON: I believe so, yes.
3 MR. WEBSTER: The interesting thing is
4 that at that level it is still within the channel
5 of the river.
6 MR. CARSON: Um-hum.
7 MR. WEBSTER: The picture there is
8 rather convenient in that everything is sort of
9 square, flat and parallel. The river bank doesn't
10 look quite like that. And so that, you know, it
11 is useful to understand that low-lying market
12 gardens and people's landscaped areas would be
13 inundated.
14 The possibility of putting some kind
15 of perforation through that lip, in the way of
16 gated culverts, for instance, presumably would
17 generate little benefit because of the fact that
18 what you need is flow that's sufficient to overtop
19 the lip; is that correct?
20 MR. CARSON: Well, if you replace the
21 lip with culverts, let's say, firstly, it would
22 take a large number of culverts to allow you to
23 pass as much as say 18,000 cubic feet per second.
24 But at that flow magnitude, the floodway channel
25 takes over the control of what the water levels
03572
1 are. So you are not achieving very much benefit,
2 at the magnitude of flow that really is a benefit
3 to reducing the flood potential in Winnipeg.
4 MR. WEBSTER: Let me go back to that
5 quantity again then. It was 500 cubic metres a
6 second or 18,000 cubic feet per second?
7 MR. CARSON: Right.
8 MR. WEBSTER: Can you compare the rule
9 4 operation of the floodway then again for us,
10 over the last few years, with the level that you
11 have given us here, the actual use level versus
12 the one that you have used here?
13 MR. CARSON: That's a very good point.
14 I think the flows in 2002 and 2004 were less than
15 this. And I understand that it was in the order
16 of 10 to 12,000 cubic feet per second, or whatever
17 that is in cubic metres per second, about 300, or
18 350 or so. But there is a factor here -- I'm
19 looking into the future when the floodway is
20 improved. And part of the improvement is to
21 eliminate the willows that have grown in the
22 bottom of the channel. And in 2002 and 2004,
23 those willows played a large roll in impeding the
24 discharge capacity of the channel. So for the
25 water levels that occurred in let's say 2004,
03573
1 which I believe was in the order of 756 and a half
2 feet, I heard Rick Bowering testify the other day.
3 In my calculations that would show a larger
4 discharge down the floodway than what actually
5 occurred in 2004, because of these willows. They
6 existed then and they won't in the future because
7 they are being cleared out.
8 MR. WEBSTER: Let's talk about the
9 floodway channel a little bit further then. This
10 analysis that you have done is on the basis of the
11 existing channel entrance, which is -- you are
12 planning on leaving it the way it is for the
13 future?
14 MR. CARSON: That's right.
15 MR. WEBSTER: Supposing that the
16 channel entrance was in fact broadened to allow
17 more water into the channel, and that the channel
18 itself was not left unmodified for that first
19 length where, in fact, in the current plan it is
20 left unmodified, would that make a difference?
21 MR. CARSON: No, it wouldn't. When
22 you are up in the range of elevation 756 or 757, I
23 think the hydraulics amply demonstrate that the
24 inlet lip is not an impeding factor. If you made
25 it 1,500 feet long or 2,000 feet long, it would
03574
1 make no difference.
2 MR. WEBSTER: I'm thinking the
3 restriction to flow in the channel is a function
4 of the channel width and the channel depth and so
5 forth. And the plan is not to modify that
6 channel, because in the use of the floodway for
7 larger flows, you are anticipating overland
8 flooding, which then you accommodate by putting
9 gaps in the -- I was going to use the word dyke,
10 it is not quite the right word -- on the south
11 side of the channel.
12 MR. CARSON: Yes.
13 MR. WEBSTER: Now, in terms of summer
14 operation, and in terms of situations in which
15 artificial flooding is likely to occur, I just
16 want to get it quite straight, that the increase
17 of the capacity of the floodway by modifying that
18 first section -- and clearly it doesn't have to
19 handle the whole flow of a 700 year flood, but if
20 the entrance is widened and the first section is
21 in fact modified, could it in fact in some ways
22 accommodate the water that has to go through there
23 without backing up the water so much?
24 MR. CARSON: I think I can probably
25 answer that question through this graph. As you
03575
1 can see, there is a slope of the water surface as
2 it goes down the floodway -- water runs downhill,
3 that's no surprise to anybody. What you can see
4 is that in order to make a change to the upstream
5 water levels, you have to go much further afield
6 than just even a half kilometre or a kilometre
7 downstream of the inlet. You have to go several
8 hundred or, in fact, I'm going to say maybe 10
9 kilometres, to get down into water levels that can
10 give you a significant improvement at the inlet.
11 And the improvements that you are talking about,
12 the intent would be to flatten the slope of the
13 water surface from the entrance to the downstream
14 end of the where the improvements are. So the
15 shorter are the improvements, the less the benefit
16 is. So when you speak of widening near the inlet,
17 there is really no room to maneuver here. There
18 is not much benefit to be had.
19 MR. WEBSTER: That's why I'm asking
20 the question, to see what the answer is there.
21 Because the sort of intuitive approach would say
22 that if you make that entrance a little bit
23 bigger, that the restriction to flow would be
24 reduced. But you are telling us it is not just
25 that part?
03576
1 MR. CARSON: No, I think the answer to
2 that is that the restriction is the channel itself
3 downstream. You have to do a substantial
4 modification of that channel to get the
5 improvement.
6 MR. WEBSTER: And that's channel
7 depth?
8 MR. CARSON: It could be width, but it
9 would be far more costly than the numbers I put up
10 for deepening. It would start to affect bridges,
11 the CPR Emerson crossing, and utilities, exactly.
12 MR. WEBSTER: Okay, thank you.
13 MR. MOTHERAL: My question would be on
14 the cost benefit. And as we can see, the
15 14 million or 12 or $14 million cost, and a net
16 benefit of possibly $3 million, as you say,
17 appears not to be attractive.
18 As we have heard in many presentations
19 this week, to put dollar values on, it is hard to
20 put dollar values on certain things. And the
21 concern that I have is the validity of the
22 quantitative analysis of this. You know, we have
23 heard of certain trees being lost because they are
24 artificially flooded. There could possibly be
25 health hazards. There is anguish and things like
03577
1 that. And maybe, including those costs would
2 maybe bring it up to where it is an attractive
3 thing to do. Do you have any comments on that?
4 MR. CARSON: Yes, certainly that issue
5 arises in any benefit cost comparison. If
6 intangibles are significant, then that could sway
7 the picture. But that's really not for me to
8 decide. I can't quantify what a tree's value is
9 and provide it in a benefit cost analysis. All I
10 can say is that, depending on a person's
11 perspective, those values could sway the argument.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Carson, in appendix
13 E in your 2001, November 2001 report from KGS, you
14 presented I think five different options, and the
15 least expensive was called scheme E. It had a
16 cost of about $29 million. How does what you
17 presented today compare with scheme E?
18 MR. CARSON: Scheme E is a very
19 aggressive scheme, and it was, essentially it was
20 building on the floodway expansion as we had
21 designed it preliminarily back in those days. So
22 it involved deepening to the extent of, I guess
23 the deepest part was six feet from the existing
24 floodway that is. And so this was a build-on on
25 to that. And this was deepening even further to
03578
1 the extent of, I think it was nine feet further at
2 the inlet -- I better not quote that, it is at
3 least six to nine feet further than the amount
4 that was in the preliminary design of the floodway
5 at that time. And that would extend right on down
6 to the floodway outlet.
7 So the $28 million, we were able to
8 achieve that with the old channel, but for the new
9 design it would be substantially more than that.
10 Because we are only allowed to widen, and that
11 would be much more expensive for this desired
12 improvement at low water levels.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. While I
14 have Mr. Carson and Mr. McNeil in the chair, I'm
15 going to actually bootleg in a question that's
16 related to artificial flooding, I think, but not
17 to the summer flooding. And it arises out of Mr.
18 Starr's comments yesterday in his closing
19 statement on behalf of the Ritchot Concerned
20 Citizens. And he said, and it is the first time I
21 had heard him say this, so I wasn't able to ask
22 any questions of you previously. He says, in fact
23 the only change was that our level of flood
24 protection was reduced from one in 250 years to
25 one in 120 years as a result of widening rather
03579
1 than deepening? Was that correct? Was there ever
2 consideration that people living south of the
3 floodway inlet would get a one in 250 protection?
4 MR. CARSON: Yes, I remember that
5 number distinctly, because that was a number that
6 was proposed, or reported in our same study back
7 in 2001. And it was based on a preliminary design
8 of the floodway expansion that involved
9 retro-fitting of bridges and deepening of the
10 floodway to the extent of a maximum deepening of
11 six feet.
12 Now since then the design has evolved,
13 considered the age and condition of the bridges,
14 and the most rational approach has been to replace
15 the bridges because they were nearing their
16 lifespan anyways. So once you factor that in, it
17 became evident that widening was not really, does
18 not come at the premium that we thought it came at
19 back in 2001. So we have ended up with widening
20 as the option.
21 There were other factors that entered
22 into the picture. We showed that the east
23 embankment gaps are very effective, and that was
24 really not considered to the full extent back in
25 2001. And in fact we have added another gap to
03580
1 even further assist that.
2 The state of nature rating curve has
3 changed significantly since the 2001 date. And I
4 think there were a few other reasons for this
5 change, and I can't think of them just now, but
6 that has caused -- yeah, I guess the fact that
7 there is no channel deepening between the inlet
8 and -- well, anywhere essentially, has affected
9 that condition as well. So I recall there were
10 five reasons that sort of explained why that
11 reduction in protection from one in 250 to one in
12 120 has occurred.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: What would it take to
14 give them one in 250?
15 MR. CARSON: We evaluated that, and
16 with the current concept that we have with the
17 floodway, it was a cost of over $200 million.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: 200 million?
19 MR. CARSON: Yes.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: An additional
21 200 million?
22 MR. CARSON: That's right.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Now, the recent
24 decision not to deepen at all, did that reduce the
25 volume of the whole, the channel, the 50-mile
03581
1 length channel, 50 kilometre?
2 MR. CARSON: Very much so, yes.
3 Because the original concept back in 2001, when we
4 didn't have the benefit of all of the condition
5 surveys of the bridges, and we just didn't know
6 the extent that we could consider improvements to
7 the bridges, we had a concept where the bridges
8 would be retro-fitted, and they would be kept,
9 many of them at the same deck elevation or the
10 same height above the maximum water surface, and
11 they would be partially submerged. So that has an
12 impeding effect on the channel. So in order to
13 compensate that, we had to have a much larger
14 channel that would have more efficiency to be able
15 to pass the water. I recall that the volume back
16 then of the channel was in the order of
17 35 million cubic metres. Of course, we had much
18 less expensive bridge modifications so that there
19 was a bit of a saw-off in terms of change in
20 channel excavation and cost with an increase in
21 the cost of the bridges.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: So, this fairly recent
23 decision not to deepen at all was just based on
24 sort of further analysis that told you, you could
25 move enough water through with just a widening and
03582
1 no deepening at all?
2 MR. MORGAN: Can I clarify something
3 on this?
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
5 MR. MORGAN: The reason is when you
6 say recent --
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, it was Mr. McNeil
8 announced it, I think on day two.
9 MR. MORGAN: That should be clarified
10 because I think there is some misunderstanding
11 there. The deepening and the no deepening that
12 Mr. Carson has talked about was in the preliminary
13 design, which we assessed. The only difference
14 was they said there could be some selective
15 deepening, I think, in some areas in the low flow
16 channel near St. Mary's which had no -- they
17 weren't in sensitive areas or anything like that.
18 So that's a very minor thing. What Mr. McNeil
19 talked about had really nothing to do with change
20 in the channel capacity.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: You are right, that's
22 what I was talking about was sort of when you
23 removed the minor deepening. So that won't have a
24 huge effect on the volume of the water that moves
25 through the floodway?
03583
1 MR. MORGAN: No.
2 MR. CARSON: No.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: I think that's all of
4 the questions that I have.
5 MR. WEBSTER: Just one further
6 conceptual question, Mr. Carson, and that has to
7 do with the option of, in fact, deepening the
8 floodway to provide that upstream lowering of
9 water levels. You evaluated that at 200 million. I
10 think that's correct, is it not? And was that
11 simply the cost of excavating further material to
12 get down to that level? Because, I mean,
13 presumably widening or deepening involves moving
14 much the same amount of material. So why was the
15 extra cost there?
16 MR. CARSON: Well, essentially what it
17 is being asked to do in order to achieve that one
18 in 250 year capacity would be to pass more water,
19 substantially more water at a lower water level.
20 So you either have to gain that by widening or
21 deepening, or some combination thereof. So we ran
22 it through the optimization technique that we have
23 set up for the existing design, and it showed that
24 there would have to be -- in fact, I guess we
25 constrained it to widening, and you would have to
03584
1 widen and increase the excavation, and also there
2 were some effects on the bridges, there would have
3 to be longer bridges. And the summation amounted
4 to more than $200 million.
5 MR. WEBSTER: I understand, but do you
6 understand what I'm saying, that if in designing
7 the capacity of the floodway, you have to remove
8 material either to make it broader or to make it
9 deeper, and it should be the same amount of soil
10 that you are removing, more or less. I am
11 wondering if that concept is in fact correct?
12 MR. CARSON: Well, I guess what would
13 come along with this channel that would cost
14 $200 million more, would be not only the ability
15 to achieve a one in 250 year level of protection
16 at the state of nature, but you would also
17 increase the protection of the ultimate channel
18 that is built. In fact, what I'm saying is that
19 it would provide more protection than the one in
20 700 year event. Because what would drive the size
21 of the channel and the bridges and so on would be
22 this lower event. So the $200 million would buy
23 not only the improvement at state of nature, but
24 also an improved protection. So really it is a
25 different channel than what we are comparing to in
03585
1 the EIS.
2 MR. WEBSTER: Yes, I understand that,
3 except that in my simple minded approach to this,
4 to get the ditch to be the right size, so to
5 speak, to move a given volume of water, whether
6 the channel is widened or deepened, the expansion
7 involves the removal of much the same amount of
8 material. I know that's a gross simplification,
9 but does it not, in fact, require the removal of
10 much the same amount of material from the channel
11 to make it bigger?
12 MR. CARSON: Generally speaking, I
13 think it is more. Because you have to go deeper,
14 and/or wider, and it involves more excavation. I
15 must be missing --
16 THE CHAIRMAN: I think I might be able
17 to help on this. I think what we are -- to
18 provide one in 250 to the people south of the
19 inlet would involve additional widening and/or
20 deepening to the floodway. So this is in addition
21 to what's already being done. And I think you
22 said, Mr. Carson, that in fact would raise the
23 overall protection to the city above one in 700,
24 but provide one in 250 to the south?
25 MR. CARSON: Yes, that would come
03586
1 along --
2 THE CHAIRMAN: So that's where the
3 additional cost would come, it is over and above
4 what we are talking about?
5 MR. CARSON: Yes.
6 MR. WEBSTER: I think that's where I'm
7 not quite clear, if you deepen the channel, why
8 would you need to widen it so much? The cost is
9 in moving the spoil from the channel.
10 MR. CARSON: Well, I think we're sort
11 of going around in circles here. The 200 million
12 was based on a scheme that would stick to widening
13 as the means of improving the discharge capacity.
14 So I'm not sure if I mislead you into thinking
15 that we were deepening, but that 200 million was
16 based on the same widening concept, and just how
17 much wider you have to make it to achieve the one
18 in 250 year value. And once you have got that,
19 then that comes along with the added benefit, I
20 guess, of providing protection greater than one in
21 700 year.
22 MR. WEBSTER: Yes, I understand what
23 you are saying there. I think what I am looking
24 at, I mean, earlier we were somewhat celebrating
25 the fact that you weren't going to deepen the
03587
1 channel because of the groundwater issues further
2 downstream. I mean, those are there no matter
3 what you decide to do. But if you were to make a
4 channel that would carry the same amount of
5 water -- you had in your original design concept
6 to make the channel bigger, you had to make it
7 either -- the cross-sectional area of the channel
8 then had to be enlarged, and you do that by either
9 making it broader, or making it deeper, or a
10 combination of the two, to give you the
11 conductivity, the flow characteristics that would
12 allow the water to be channeled effectively. And
13 so that's why I'm questioning whether in fact, I
14 wasn't thinking of making the channel bigger than
15 the current plan to accommodate that water, I'm
16 thinking of the concept of lowering the channel to
17 allow the water to enter in a situation that
18 provides less artificial flooding upstream.
19 MR. MORGAN: Dave Morgan. I want to
20 clarify. What Mr. Carson said earlier was that --
21 you are saying can't you go back to the old design
22 and it would be the same cost as you had in 2001?
23 What he is clarifying is that since that time the
24 assessment of the bridges has come along and said,
25 you are going to have to replace these bridges
03588
1 anyhow. So the concept of 2000, with the
2 additional knowledge that we know about the
3 bridges, couldn't be priced at the same price
4 anyhow. So you would go deeper, you would still
5 have to replace bridges. And as we have learned
6 as we have gone through this hearing so much, you
7 would still have potential effects on groundwater
8 which could be significant. So you can't go back
9 to the old design at the same cost. Am I clear?
10 Mr. Carson can correct me if --
11 MR. WEBSTER: So a large portion of
12 the cost of the construction is in fact the
13 replacing of bridges is the message that Dr.
14 Morgan is giving me, is that right?
15 MR. CARSON: That's true, yes.
16 MR. WEBSTER: And that's there
17 whatever happens.
18 MR. CARSON: Yes.
19 MR. WEBSTER: I am sorry, I prevented
20 you from answering the question that he was asking
21 you. Did you have something else you wanted to
22 add to that?
23 MR. CARSON: No, not much. I guess I
24 want to make it clear that the 200 million was
25 only for widening. I would be very surprised if
03589
1 we went only to deepening to provide that, that we
2 get much different. It might be a little bit
3 lower, but it is still a substantial amount of
4 money to achieve that.
5 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. Thank you very
6 much.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Wayne?
8 MR. MOTHERAL: The more I was
9 listening, the more confused I was getting too.
10 But I would -- a way to ask the question would be,
11 can you lower the first portion of the floodway,
12 only the first portion where it is not affecting,
13 shouldn't affect the groundwater because of the
14 clay base, and then go up and widen the rest of
15 it? Would that give better protection upstream?
16 MR. CARSON: Well, then you run into
17 these practical difficulties. You would be
18 creating essentially a pool of water upstream that
19 wouldn't drain. And so, I mean, certainly, I
20 mean, you can -- I wouldn't say that you can
21 achieve what we are talking about by doing that,
22 but it would go a long ways towards that, at
23 detriment of having a pool of water, you are
24 creating a lake there permanently.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I think that
03590
1 concludes our questioning in that regard. So
2 thank you all very much.
3 Yes, Mr. McNeil?
4 MR. MCNEIL: Just because we have had
5 so much conversation about this, I want to get
6 this on the record, even though we all know it.
7 Anything related to summer operation is not part
8 of this project. I think it was demonstrated that
9 in the flood protection studies for Winnipeg
10 report, it was looked at for the concept of
11 floodway expansion, primarily for spring, what
12 else could you do for summer water level control?
13 But Government, after the conclusion of the
14 floodway protection studies for Winnipeg, and
15 after the operation in 2002, did in fact do a
16 study called Summer Water Level Control for
17 Winnipeg. That study is now posted on the website
18 of Manitoba Conservation. And right at the
19 beginning of that report it indicates that the
20 terms of reference were to proceed with the study
21 of summer water level control using the gates
22 only. In other words, it excluded consideration
23 of any other physical option related to floodway
24 expansion, or related to the existing floodway.
25 And so it was a direction that Government took at
03591
1 that time, after they operated in 2002, that in
2 consideration of summer water level control, they
3 would only do so with the operation of the
4 existing gates. And as you know, under this
5 project we are not changing those gates.
6 So I just wanted to get that on the
7 record that the Government did not contemplate at
8 the time, after operation in 2002, any physical
9 changes whatsoever to the existing or the expanded
10 floodway to enhance or reduce summer water levels.
11 Thank you.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I think
13 that brings us to a close on this matter.
14 Just before we break for lunch,
15 immediately after lunch the first closing
16 statements we will have will be on behalf the
17 three municipalities; following that will be the
18 Coalition for Flood Protection North; and
19 following that we may have a closing statement by
20 Manitoba Wildlands. So let's break for lunch and
21 come back at 1:00 please?
22 MR. STEFANIUK: May I be allowed to
23 make a comment?
24 THE CHAIRMAN: It is completely out of
25 order. What is it in respect to, Mayor Stefaniuk?
03592
1 MR. STEFANIUK: The discussion that
2 we just had and how it pertains to what I was sort
3 of driving at.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: I think we have heard a
5 lot from you and many others in your part of the
6 world, from the RM of Ritchot in this respect.
7 MR. STEFANIUK: You have indeed, yes.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: And I think what we
9 were looking for today was just some clarification
10 for our benefit. So, I think, you know, we can be
11 at this forever if we allow endless comments back
12 and forth on it.
13 MR. STEFANIUK: I don't intend to
14 debate on it. I just want to give you some
15 clarification from our point of thinking. There
16 are about two minutes left. I will respect your
17 decision, I'm not trying to challenge that.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: I will allow you two
19 minutes. It will probably be quicker than
20 debating with you.
21 MR. STEFANIUK: Thank you, Mr.
22 Chairman.
23 I liked what Mr. Carson is saying,
24 that to modify, they haven't gone far enough.
25 What we have always said is that if you took the
03593
1 channel, and maybe changed the alignment of it,
2 widened it to a magnitude, deepened it even more,
3 that you would have a situation where you could
4 sort of during a one in 700 year flood, or one in
5 120 year flood, lower the level of the water
6 completely in the river to below natural flood
7 levels. That would provide the flood levels that
8 we need, and I think it is doable. It also would
9 help in summer operations. And it would also have
10 the benefit too if you could lower the water,
11 lower the natural upstream, that you would have a
12 situation in Winnipeg where you wouldn't have
13 $140 million on augmenting flood protection with
14 the primary dykes. And I think that's an
15 important fact to bear in mind. And I thank you
16 very much.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
18 Thank you, Mr. Stefaniuk.
19 And I would note, Mayor Stefaniuk, if
20 it is any comfort at all, that two or three days
21 ago Mr. McNeil, in response to a question from me,
22 said that there is nothing in this project that
23 would exclude that from being done at a future
24 date.
25 MR. STEFANIUK: (inaudible)
03594
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I hope that's not
2 true.
3 (Proceedings recessed at 12:00 and
4 reconvened at 1:00 p.m.)
5
6 THE CHAIRMAN: If we can come to
7 order, please. First up this afternoon, we have a
8 closing statement on behalf of the three
9 municipalities. In what order? Are we going to
10 hear from the reeves first or you, Mr. Currie?
11 MR. CURRIE: Mr. Chairman, I believe
12 we are going to hear from the three reeves first
13 and then I'll hopefully do clean-up.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Hopefully?
15 MR. CURRIE: I will do clean-up.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: We hope so, too. Thank
17 you.
18 MR. STRANG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
19 Mr. Chairman, gentlemen of the committee, Manitoba
20 Floodway Authority, participant groups, fellow
21 municipalities, ladies and gentlemen, I would like
22 to first thank the committee in allowing us to
23 submit our closing statements today. As I spoke
24 to you earlier, Mr. Chairman, it's a difficult
25 thing being a reeve or a councillor. It's
03595
1 considered a part-time job, but in the last while
2 it's certainly a full-time one.
3 It is difficult to sit here as the
4 Reeve of the RM of St. Clements and have to fight
5 for the health and well-being of our municipality
6 and doing so against the largest undertaking that
7 Southern Manitoba will most likely ever see.
8 However, we feel as the council of the RM, we have
9 no choice. The health and the well-being of our
10 residents must come first and foremost.
11 As I stated before, and some of the
12 things as I go through, it will be restated from
13 my past presentations, we have tried hard to work
14 out our concerns with upper level government,
15 provincial and federal. But yet, we are here with
16 little choice, spending our residential tax
17 dollars to fight for our concerns. These dollars
18 that we spend here today could have gladly been
19 used in future infrastructure needs of the
20 municipality.
21 As the RMs, we have brought many
22 concerns to the table; aquifer concerns, low level
23 crossing concerns, ice-induced flooding, erosion
24 and others. Have our concerns been validated? I
25 believe after Monday's new submission from the MFA
03596
1 and the questions that have come through the
2 committee that they are starting to be, especially
3 our concerns based on our aquifer. And I say this
4 based on all of the changes that were submitted to
5 you gentlemen.
6 With that, I have to reflect back and
7 ask why is it that we failed to do the same with
8 our political partners? I do not know the answer
9 to that question. So I will pose another
10 question. Are we, as governments, working here
11 for the well-being of our residents and our
12 environment or are we here working on someone's
13 legacy? Is Duff's Ditch heading for a new name?
14 We're not so sure it isn't and that deeply
15 troubles us.
16 All our concerns are real, and again,
17 I believe that is shown due to all the changes
18 that have come about since the beginning of these
19 hearings. With that said, it is good that our
20 $100,000 have brought much change to the
21 $10 million already spent by the Authority. So
22 much in fact that perhaps MFA will give
23 consideration for paying for all of that. Doug?
24 Now this prompts me to ask another
25 question. Is there anything else missed? The
03597
1 mandate did not look at the sewage from the
2 Winnipeg storm sewer outlet. That outlet still
3 openly weeps today and with it brings E. Coli
4 counts that are still very disturbing for us. And
5 as the attachment that Reeve Holland has given to
6 you, he'll be able to justify that and he'll speak
7 further on it.
8 Our frustration often makes us compare
9 what the floodway has to offer in return for what
10 we give up. The answer, as you may have heard
11 many times before, is very little. I think my
12 colleague Reeve Holland stated it very well. The
13 floodway does look as a scar upon our lands but I
14 will tell you I now view it as a rape upon our
15 lands.
16 You know that 90 per cent of the
17 floodway sits in the three RMs. And with that
18 said, if you consider 90 per cent represents
19 approximately 9,300 acres, the RM is giving up
20 approximately $125,000 a year based on
21 agricultural land taxes. Not to say that that
22 area would not be full of homes now because the
23 lands that the floodway is located on cut through
24 some of the heaviest populated areas in our
25 municipality.
03598
1 Taking that into account, it would
2 actually perhaps be a loss of five or six times
3 that. Think about taking that amount and giving
4 it consideration over the last 40 years since the
5 floodway was built. Wow, that is a lot of giving
6 right there on our part.
7 It is not over yet though, there is
8 still more. Mr. Webster talked yesterday about
9 the garbage dump. Well, there's more than that.
10 It is the auto wreck yard, it's a drop-off area
11 for the stolen vehicles, it's a party place, a
12 poacher's paradise, a quad and snowmobile track.
13 There is more because it also cuts through our
14 municipalities, separating our neighbours too.
15 And with that, not allowing them full protective
16 services 100 per cent of the year.
17 I know we have brought these concerns
18 forward already. But the point stands, we give up
19 so much and, in fact, we get very little in
20 return.
21 During the last three weeks, you have
22 heard the concerns from residents upstream,
23 downstream and throughout the run of the floodway.
24 You have heard real stories about real people, the
25 losses, the stress and the anxiety in dealing with
03599
1 the floodway and what it brings with it. The
2 disabled young man from my municipality who helped
3 carry the piano and all his personal belongings up
4 the stairs to save them. The continuous loss to
5 families' homes, properties, businesses and
6 livelihoods. Families have been torn apart by
7 leaving strong men as failures because they could
8 not protect their homes. This added pressure,
9 stress and anxiety has left many children with
10 divorced parents. We view this as very
11 concerning. This is not acceptable. We are not
12 third world here, we are Canadians and we are
13 supposed to treat our own with respect.
14 This followed is human health related,
15 not just personal property related, and how can
16 you place a value on that? It's not even
17 considered as effects by the MFA.
18 These hearings are setting the stage
19 for licensing of the (inaudible) floodway. It is
20 not a licence for half the floodway or part of the
21 floodway. But if licenced, it will represent the
22 entirety of the floodway system. This licensing
23 will cover the past, the present and the future
24 but yet the Manitoba Floodway Authority still only
25 wants to look at things in the future aspects of
03600
1 building and operation, not the past.
2 In our eyes, the licence will take
3 away public input. Whether or not we get a water
4 study or liaison group or whatever is offered up,
5 they are only good as the power given to them.
6 Hence where is the public input? Where does it
7 stand? What stops the comment not in our mandate
8 or not in our baseline from coming back?
9 Your recommendations, gentlemen, must
10 give power to whoever or whatever you recommend.
11 And please remember, the RMs want to be part of it
12 every step of the way. We want our voices to be
13 heard and we would like them accounted for all the
14 way through this process.
15 Here is another question. Who will
16 police us when it's being built? Who ensures us
17 in what is being submitted today will get done in
18 the future? We have recommendations. The
19 presentation to follow from our legal counsel will
20 further represent our closing remarks in the
21 recommendation to the committee. I will quickly
22 speak on a few items and possible ideas.
23 Our aquifer concerns still stand and
24 we are afraid that no matter what measures are
25 taken, there are no guarantees that we will not
03601
1 see contamination. To us, any chance is too much
2 of a chance. To go on, it seems that our water
3 losses will continue and that the MFA will still
4 be the largest user of fresh water in our area.
5 It was stated Monday that even special
6 grouting will not totally seal the aquifer and
7 that the water loss tests are not even finished
8 yet. We're not even able to gauge on the amount
9 we have lost or losing to date. Perhaps a
10 solution is to mitigate the water loss by putting
11 in a series of wells on the east side. In turn,
12 you can have enough clean, safe drinking water to
13 supply a large area. Then pipe that area into a
14 system that blankets the area of where the
15 contamination is at its highest risk. This is
16 just a suggestion, just an idea. This could be
17 far cheaper and safer than what is presented and
18 at least it will be a 100 per cent guarantee.
19 That is what we are seeking here regarding our
20 water concerns, a 100 per cent guarantee.
21 Reflect back to the concerns regarding
22 the Lockport area when I presented in the past,
23 all those businesses, all those condominiums, all
24 those people. If our aquifer gets contaminated,
25 who will be liable? Who pays? Will the
03602
1 provincial and federal government pay? Will the
2 municipality have to pay? Who deals with the
3 stress, the anxiety of all of this? Who will be
4 accountable and do we go to find them? We cannot
5 believe that anyone would allow themselves to be
6 held even partially responsible through decisions
7 that they are making consciously or unconsciously.
8 The Dunning Road Crossing. We believe
9 you know what this crossing represents to our
10 community. And you also know what we lose when
11 this crossing is taken out of commission every
12 time the floodway is in use.
13 In reference to other parts of this
14 project like twinning of the bridge on a
15 single-lane highway or improving the drop
16 structures, or even more recently, possible
17 recreational usage on the floodway that is
18 addressed in a recent letter by Mr. Gilroy. We
19 feel these are all common-sense issues and should
20 be and must be addressed. We support them all.
21 But our concerns with our crossing seem to be
22 getting washed away with the floodway waters. To
23 consider any of the items over ours is not a fair
24 process.
25 The decisions made by the MFA are
03603
1 totally outside their mandate regarding these
2 issues so it must be that our concerns and wants
3 are given the same respect and consideration.
4 It's not about winning the lottery, it's not about
5 an ATM machine, it's about being fair in a
6 process. That crossing is needed and wanted as a
7 bridge. That's the bottom line. And it does not
8 hurt anyone if the committee recommends it. It
9 does not hurt anybody.
10 You know the reasons. The argument
11 was put forward and it represents the need for
12 thousands of our residents to be safe and to allow
13 them to have protective services and a
14 transportation link. We are growing and we need
15 to recognize that.
16 This crossing is not new. It has been
17 there for some time. Floodway, spring operations
18 take away our use of the floodway and summer
19 operations does the same. We are giving, giving
20 and giving and it's not too much to ask for
21 something back. It is not too much at all.
22 If you give consideration to
23 recreational or twinning of our bridge with a
24 single-lane highway, then how could you turn your
25 back on allowing us the ability to protect our
03604
1 residents?
2 I want to quickly speak today
3 regarding the ice jamming. It seemed to be a
4 major issue. And as I made my notes earlier and
5 the comments that came forward today, I would just
6 like to say I would like to simplify what was put
7 forward earlier. The end cause of ice jamming in
8 our eyes is flooding and does the floodway or the
9 usage of the floodway add to that? We believe it
10 does. But at the end of the day, no matter what
11 pressure the ice is cleared at, it creates
12 flooding.
13 Now recently, Minister Ashton along
14 with the Water Stewardship Board has started
15 working on a committee. I am part of that
16 committee, St. Andrew's, City of Selkirk and we
17 have recently invited the MFA to the table and I'm
18 very happy to say that Mr. McNeil sent two of his
19 colleagues to the meeting on Tuesday.
20 I believe that is the right way to
21 address this issue. There needs to be much done.
22 It needs to be studied more and I see many
23 inadequacies within the information that's there.
24 When you look at such a large problem,
25 the best way to champion is to work together.
03605
1 I also want to talk briefly regarding
2 the erosion situation and it falls under the same
3 categories. Our concerns are real. We cannot
4 stand up against the monies that were spent or the
5 computer analysis studies that have been done by
6 MFA, but I will say that because our concerns are
7 based on the past happenings with what we've seen
8 as far as bank erosion, we feel at least, the very
9 least, it can be studied and monitored.
10 There is so much through all of this
11 that we give, so much. And as we look at it and
12 as I made the comment before, it's almost
13 considered like I view it as a rape. And what I'm
14 saying, gentlemen, is like let's stop the rape and
15 at least make it consensual sex. And I say that
16 because it's based on, and I know the comment is
17 strong, but it's based on people working together
18 to solve problems. It should not be all give, it
19 has to be give and take. You have the power to do
20 that. Working on a give and take is the only way
21 to get this project done right. It cannot be
22 all-out sacrifice for the city.
23 You have the powers to recommend what
24 you feel is right. The words baseline, mandate,
25 you gentlemen should not worry about these words,
03606
1 you should make sure that this is done right with
2 no one getting sacrificed. That is what your
3 mandate should be. Getting it finally right for
4 everyone. It is within your grasp and I'm asking
5 you, please, do not let it go. Human health
6 issues are part of this and they cannot be turned
7 away based on the almighty dollar. I know you can
8 put those recommendations forward. You have been
9 asking all the right questions. We just need to
10 get it down on paper and make sure the
11 recommendations are done with the powers they need
12 to get the job done.
13 Please help stop the bowing the
14 floodway does to our communities and to our
15 neighbours. Protect our waters. Give us clean,
16 safe drinking water and allow us the ability to
17 protect our residents all year round. That is
18 little to ask for for all we give up, little.
19 Again, it's not a lottery. It's not an ATM
20 machine, it's just doing the right thing. Thank
21 you.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Reeve
23 Strang. Deputy Reeve Gera?
24 MR. GERA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
25 gentlemen of the Committee, Manitoba Floodway
03607
1 Authority, ladies and gentlemen. In a transcript,
2 Mr. Webster stated on Monday, March 7th, we have
3 perhaps an opportunity here to correct some of the
4 issues that are concerned with the original
5 floodway. I think the word "perhaps" should be
6 removed. I think we have a positive way. It
7 should be more positive. We have the -- right
8 now, we have the ideas to correct the floodway.
9 As we get on, we start off with the
10 three municipalities got together on a regional
11 basis to bring these concerns to the Commission.
12 Together we have spent over $100,000 to make our
13 concerns known. Bringing in Wayne Clifton, Peter
14 Hayes and Gary Palmateer was a positive direction
15 on how to bring added information to approve the
16 floodway and to alleviate our concerns. It wasn't
17 meant to be negative to the Manitoba Floodway
18 Authority but we meant to open up discussion and
19 design issues.
20 Over the last few weeks, we heard a
21 lot of technical, political and citizens concerns
22 and issues. We all learned a great deal through
23 the course of these hearings. We hope to see some
24 major changes come forth. All through, the
25 Manitoba Floodway Authority has made some major
03608
1 changes already.
2 Because of these hearings, however,
3 our concerns still need to be answered. (A) We
4 have the cost of the water lines for our
5 municipality. We have the protection of our
6 aquifer. We have an outfall structure on the west
7 side on Hazelridge Road. Also, a solution to the
8 Dunning Road crossing. So I appealed to the
9 Commission to weigh all the evidence presented.
10 Until these very substantial issues are addressed,
11 this project should not be fast-tracked. I trust
12 in the integrity of the Commissioners in that they
13 will do the right thing for all the citizens of
14 the Red River basin.
15 I thank you. I also would like to
16 thank each of these two reeves that helped me out
17 because I came late into this presentation with
18 the hearings. I'd like to thank them for the
19 support to bring me up to speed and I also feel
20 honoured to represent the RM of East St. Paul.
21 Thank you again.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Deputy Reeve
23 Gera. Reeve Holland?
24 MR. HOLLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
25 I had distributed a kind of a two-part written
03609
1 presentation. I realized to my horror when I got
2 up here, my name isn't on it anywhere but I
3 definitely hold myself accountable for the
4 material contained in that presentation.
5 Mr. Chairman, members of the
6 Commission, we have had the shared experience of a
7 rather intensive consideration of the
8 environmental, economic and social impacts of the
9 Red River Floodway and the proposed expansion
10 thereof.
11 I believe all of the parties have an
12 underlying expectation of consistency. Residents
13 of the valley feel there should be a consistent
14 level of flood protection in and outside the City
15 of Winnipeg, failing which there should be full,
16 fair and effective compensation for those not
17 protected.
18 The MFA questions the level of
19 diligence supplied by the RMs to their own
20 projects compared to the level of diligence we are
21 seeking to apply to their project. Our residents
22 hold us accountable to apply the same level of
23 diligence to decisions concerning the siting of
24 livestock operations, rural residential
25 development and gravel pit management.
03610
1 The Commission questions whether we
2 have advanced our concerns consistently throughout
3 the process.
4 The RMs have an expectation that the
5 proponent will apply the principles of sustainable
6 development, the Water Rights Act, principles of
7 the proposed Water Protection Act, the Public
8 Health Act and Environment Act to name a few. We
9 expect the Government of Manitoba will apply these
10 acts consistently to their own project.
11 Unfortunately, we have come to expect
12 a rather significant level of inconsistency in the
13 capital region. Could this have something to do
14 with politicking and a stunted sense of altruism?
15 It is obvious that the impacts are
16 very different for different locations and
17 different portions of the valley population. I
18 mentioned that the RM of Springfield supported the
19 expanded floodway option in January 2002. Today,
20 I need to acknowledge that we did so with little
21 or no appreciation of the devastating impact on
22 people living upstream of the inlet and the
23 apparent disregard for people living north of the
24 outlet drop structure.
25 While today we have been lumped
03611
1 together with the so-called north communities, in
2 January 2002 and subsequently, we studiously
3 avoided aligning our interests with either the
4 south or north groups, recognizing that our
5 interests had little or nothing to do with river
6 flooding.
7 Springfield was not, is not and will
8 not be significantly subject to river flooding.
9 River water was not previously present in our
10 community, either to threaten our environment or
11 to offer a cheap way of dealing with untreated
12 sewage.
13 At the same time, if you asked do we
14 benefit from the floodway, we would readily
15 acknowledge that we benefit from flood protection
16 for the City of Winnipeg. And we have sustained a
17 considerable cost to support that protection to
18 date. We have mentioned the interruption of a
19 number of local traffic routes, including
20 Springfield Road and Centre Line Road, both
21 significant access routes to and from our
22 community, the obstruction of established drainage
23 routes, significant additional cost of providing
24 services across the floodway, a reduced tax base
25 and added responsibility for a large area absent
03612
1 any presence of land owner responsibility.
2 Including the floodway and other City
3 of Winnipeg or provincial projects for the benefit
4 of the City of Winnipeg, we have lost 17,500
5 acres. And in 2002, incurred an annual tax loss
6 of $1,052,745 which will double with the proposed
7 City of Winnipeg water treatment plant to be
8 constructed in our municipality this year. This
9 is a significant level of altruism for our small
10 community.
11 Our issues are relatively simple, can
12 be mitigated without prohibitive cost, and in the
13 case of groundwater, cannot legally or morally be
14 ignored.
15 Recognized experts have clearly
16 identified the underlying elements of a threat to
17 the safety of the underground aquifer and in turn
18 to the health and welfare of the people of my
19 community. It would not be altruism but
20 treasonous to weight the health and well-being of
21 the people in my community against the health and
22 welfare of the residents of Winnipeg, particularly
23 when reasonable measures can be undertaken to
24 extricate us from the horns of that dilemma.
25 I want to mention that the Public
03613
1 Involvement Program process was structured to
2 include private meetings with council and
3 subsequent public meetings during which it was
4 considered inappropriate for elected officials to
5 participate actively. In that process, concerns
6 raised by council and by residents were highly
7 coincident.
8 While it is unfortunate that
9 politicking has come to be used in a pejorative
10 sense, it is hard to accept that there is
11 something wrong in assessing public concerns and
12 then representing those concerns in the
13 appropriate forum at the time. Some electors
14 actually have the expectation of that sort of
15 representation. If delay results, then blame
16 should rest at the feet of those who chose to
17 ignore public concerns and not sufficiently or at
18 all investigate the basis for those concerns.
19 The public involvement process of
20 consultation, which was originally perceived as
21 genuine and in good faith, was subsequently proven
22 highly suspect. A number of questions simply went
23 unanswered. Issues were taken off the table but
24 have resurfaced leaving one to question whether
25 they were ever truly off the table.
03614
1 I want to refer to some minutes of a
2 meeting of September 13, 2004 in our community.
3 It indicates,
4 "The RMs of Springfield and Tache have
5 concerns about possible recreational
6 opportunities associated with the
7 proposed Floodway Expansion Project.
8 Specifically, the RMs are concerned
9 about the provision of services such
10 as fire and ambulance as a result of
11 recreational activities taking place
12 in the floodway."
13 After some further comment, it
14 concludes,
15 "MFEA at that time will consult with
16 RMs potentially affected from any
17 recreational opportunity before
18 determining what activities would be
19 permitted."
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Reeve Holland, could
21 you, just for the record, give the reference or
22 the page numbers at the bottom of the page. I
23 believe that comes out of volume 3 of the --
24 MR. HOLLAND: I imagine it would be
25 contained in volume 3 and I didn't actually -- I
03615
1 kept this as record at the time and --
2 THE CHAIRMAN: That's sufficient. You
3 gave the dates.
4 MR. HOLLAND: It's a nine page
5 document in any event. Perhaps I can provide a
6 reference for it.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: That's sufficient.
8 MR. HOLLAND: So no such consultation
9 has taken place nor has it been proposed. Yet in
10 these hearings, it seems to be proposed as a
11 benefit of the project and money has either been
12 spent or set aside for recreational activities.
13 And I was not here yesterday to hear
14 the presentation of the Trails Association but I
15 think I need to comment on a couple of aspects of
16 that because I understood that their position was
17 that all of the municipalities along the course of
18 the floodway supported recreation, well clearly
19 that's not the case and that's been on the record
20 for quite some time. And we were promised that
21 that would be the subject of a separate
22 consultation process.
23 The other thing that was mentioned was
24 I think a desire, if not an expectation, that MFA
25 might spend up to $20 million on that recreation,
03616
1 3 per cent of the project cost. If I recall
2 correctly, I think they were talking about
3 protection for the people south of the inlet at a
4 cost of something like $29 million which was
5 considered outlandish. So I think some of us have
6 to get our priorities straight on this.
7 Surely, the Commission must ask itself
8 if the EIS is correct in its conclusion that there
9 would be no significant effect of deepening by .6
10 metres, why has the decision been made not to
11 deepen? At what cost and with what degree of
12 reliability? We are concerned with the apparent
13 alacrity of the MFA on the issue of deepening and
14 would insist that detailed conditions stipulating
15 no deepening be attached to an environmental
16 licence. In particular, the conditions should
17 reflect undertaking that no part of the channel
18 will be deepened beyond its current respective
19 level and the scope -- or the slope, rather, that
20 should read, of the current channel will be
21 maintained when it is widened. Further
22 requirements for restoration and erosion
23 protection of the low flow channel should be
24 mandated.
25 And I suppose inasmuch as this was
03617
1 prepared prior to today's presentation somewhat
2 prophetic because we are back to talking about
3 whether in fact the issue of deepening or the
4 decision not to deepen has really been
5 sufficiently considered. And is it practical, is
6 it consistent with the most efficient and
7 effective way of achieving the expansion? We just
8 want to know for certain. We don't want it left
9 to the discretion of the MFA as they begin to
10 build this project.
11 While it is certainly MFA's right to
12 argue the appropriate scope and baseline of the
13 project, it is highly questionable that they have
14 chosen to ignore significant health and social
15 issues. The end result is that if the Commission
16 chooses a different scope or baseline, there is
17 very little basis for attaching conditions to
18 approval as we do not even know the most basic
19 facts.
20 Even this flawed process deteriorated
21 rapidly when the EIS was issued. There was no
22 meaningful public consultation beyond that point.
23 There were a couple of preaching sessions,
24 generally dismissive attitude and questions that
25 went unanswered. One of those questions arose as
03618
1 a result of the supplementary volume 4. In
2 supplementary volume 4, we saw for the first time
3 that the cut-off wall at Spring Hill had gone
4 beyond a thought process to an assumption, if you
5 will.
6 In response to that, I wrote on
7 January 7, 2005. It is somewhat encouraging that
8 a clay plug is being proposed in the east bank of
9 the floodway rather than simply being a possible
10 consideration. However, no specifications
11 accompany the available EIS documents. The
12 location and extent are both uncertain and there's
13 no indication of what groundwater impact would
14 occur absent the clay plug.
15 Apparently, the design of the plug
16 would incorporate the existing clay plug extending
17 under Spring Hill ski slope. Knowledge of this
18 plug would appear to indicate some knowledge of
19 the original construction. But again, no drawings
20 or specifications are offered. No observations
21 are offered as to the effectiveness of the
22 existing plug, either to prevent groundwater
23 outflows or flood water intrusion. Will the
24 proposed clay plug be more effective, less
25 effective or designed only to provide no negative
03619
1 impact, and perhaps more importantly, no benefit
2 over the authority's self-imposed baseline of
3 post-existing floodway.
4 I think, Mr. Webster, on
5 February 16th, you were headed in somewhat the
6 same direction.
7 "MR. WEBSTER: Have you some further
8 diagrams of the construction that you
9 are planning to do that you can show
10 us?
11 MR. MORGAN: No. This is the detail
12 we have up there. No further
13 diagrams."
14 And there's some ensuing instruction. So those
15 are concerns that are still on the table today and
16 I think unanswered questions.
17 It was only with the greatest good
18 luck and the involvement of knowledgeable people
19 who cared about what they saw happening that more
20 complete evidence has been placed before the
21 Commission. When it became apparent to our
22 experts that the MFA fundamentally cared only
23 about their project and not for the concerns of
24 people outside Winnipeg, they had to considerably
25 increase their effort to a large extent without
03620
1 adequate compensation. We very much appreciate
2 that effort. And ironically, the MFA and the
3 Commission are the true beneficiaries to the
4 extent that human disaster and huge moral, legal
5 and financial responsibility resulting from a
6 flawed investigation will be avoided.
7 It is of interest that the City of
8 Winnipeg chose presenter status which in turn
9 resulted in very little opportunity to question.
10 And it should be noted that Mayor Katz signed a
11 letter requesting a delay in these proceedings to
12 allow the issue of $249 million required within
13 the city to afford the 1 in 700 year flood
14 protection and sewer upgrades to be addressed.
15 These sewer upgrades would significantly address
16 concerns of upstream residents, the Transcona drop
17 structure and the environment generally. It is
18 uncertain what consideration has been promised to
19 the city or how quickly programs will be
20 delivered. But all of us have a significant
21 interest in that issue.
22 Mr. MacBride presumably shares these
23 concerns and was present at the meeting during
24 which Mayor Katz agreed with our concerns to
25 address certain issues.
03621
1 We want to include in our record, and
2 this is the attachment that I have distributed
3 with my presentation, test results conducted by
4 the City of Winnipeg which include inter alia a
5 reading of 23,000 E. Coli on February 5, 2005
6 indicating an ongoing source of contamination
7 which has persisted for a long time given sediment
8 test results and continues to stubbornly resist
9 the city's best efforts to prevent sewer outflows.
10 Do not conclude from Mr. MacBride's comments that
11 this was an isolated event or that the problem is
12 not ongoing. Look at the evidence. The
13 recommended health risk assessment is a critical
14 necessity.
15 And I guess if you look back at the
16 transcript, and this goes back to March 1st
17 actually, page 95 of 119, Mr. Chairman, asks,
18 "Okay, thank you. Just on that
19 incident in the last fall in the
20 Transcona outfall, was that -- would
21 you consider that an unusual
22 occurrence whereby some sewage
23 overflowed into the floodway?"
24 I'm not sure what question Mr. MacBride thought he
25 was answering but it goes on for some time. And
03622
1 after another half a page, the Chairman comments,
2 "So the answer to my question whether
3 that was unusual is yes?"
4 That was on March 1st. And Mr. MacBride spoke of
5 a course of action occurring between December 14th
6 and December 18th and everything apparently got
7 cleared up.
8 Well, the sheet that I have provided
9 to you which, you know, as I say, as a result of
10 the city's own investigation, and I might just
11 note that 200 E. Coli is the acceptable level for
12 draining a municipal sewage lagoon into the
13 drainage infrastructure. On the 21st of December,
14 their reading for fecal coliform was 110,000,
15 1,500 on the 7th of January and 23,000 on the 7th
16 of February. So it doesn't look as if it's all
17 that unusual and it doesn't really look as if it
18 was all cleared up by December 18th.
19 I'm sort of trying to watch my time
20 and I fear I'm going to go over a bit. I just
21 want to digress a little bit and this issue
22 prompts me to do that because on Monday, I found
23 myself having a couple of very strange experiences
24 I guess. And Mr. Motheral, in the transcript, had
25 commented that he was confused and I think I was
03623
1 getting confused. Maybe the level of the
2 discussion had got to the point where it was
3 confusing to municipal politicians. But I don't
4 know if you've ever had that experience of being
5 in a movie theatre and you get to a particularly
6 poignant part of the movie and some poor person
7 somewhere laughs out loud and everybody sort of
8 feels sorry for that person I think. And I was
9 feeling like that on Monday because Dr. Morgan was
10 testifying, and we got into, you know, a
11 discussion about the sources of contamination out
12 there. And Dr. Webster made the comment,
13 "So the first definition is this is
14 not potable water."
15 I mean I just about broke out laughing. I looked
16 at the MFA and they were all very studiously
17 nodding. Well, there must be something here that
18 I'm not catching. I mean potable water. And I'm
19 referring to a paper prepared by, it's "Potable
20 Water, A Manitoba Perspective," Dr. Joel Kettner,
21 September 27, 2000. The entire paper is about
22 potable water. It's a bit of a political and a
23 legal concept perhaps more than a scientific
24 concept. But it's water that has to meet either
25 certain basic standards or guidelines depending on
03624
1 the state of legislation.
2 Potable water, the maximum acceptable
3 coliform count is zero. The maximum acceptable
4 concentration for fecal coliforms is zero. E.
5 Coli is a specific type of fecal coliform. The
6 maximum acceptable concentration of E. Coli in
7 drinking water is zero. 23,000 at the floodway
8 outlet on February 7th, missed it, you know, just
9 by that much. It didn't escape hawkeye Morgan.
10 We know the water in there is not potable water.
11 I don't think there is a surface body of water in
12 the province that would be potable water,
13 according to the standards that are applied.
14 The other confusion that arose, and I
15 realize I'm going to incur your impatience to some
16 extent, Mr. Chair, here but it's part of the
17 reason people don't like politicians. We get
18 elected for telling stories. Engineers and
19 administrators get fired for telling stories. But
20 again, I had one of those experiences, you know,
21 when you think, gee, I've been here before. And
22 you're trying to put your finger on it, you know,
23 when would I have run into this? And it was after
24 the discussion about baseline that took place just
25 after Mr. Motheral admitted his confusion. And,
03625
1 you know, as Yogi Berra said, I guess it was like
2 deja vu all over again.
3 And the odd part was I had this
4 picture in my mind of this '79 Chevy car that I
5 had. And I'll try to make this very quick. But
6 it was a good little car but it started to miss.
7 You know, it's probably a spark plug wire or
8 something. But I took it into the garage. No,
9 it's got burnt valves. Okay. What's it going to
10 cost to fix the valves? Well, it's 400 bucks to
11 fix the valves. Okay, go ahead and fix the
12 valves. Get the car back. A couple of days
13 later, the oil pressure light comes on. Checked
14 the dipstick, like there's no oil. You know, so I
15 added oil. Next day, checked the dipstick. It's
16 right down to add already. So a couple of days of
17 this, I went back to the mechanic and I said look,
18 I paid you 400 bucks to fix my engine, I can't
19 even afford to drive the car, it's going through
20 so much oil. Like you should give my 400 bucks
21 back. Well, what the mechanic said of course was,
22 well, hey, we worked on the valves. When we fixed
23 the valves, it increased the compression in the
24 engine. Now your rings are worn out. The oil is
25 going by the rings. And, you know, I got the
03626
1 distinct impression I wasn't going to get my 400
2 bucks back.
3 So then I started thinking about it
4 some more and I thought, you know, it probably
5 wasn't a really good investment to put 400 bucks
6 in putting brand new valves on top of a worn out
7 engine. And I thought, I don't think I'm going to
8 do that again.
9 So the other day when we were talking
10 about the cut-off wall and the baseline and all
11 this stuff, I mean I thought well, you know, it
12 sort of feels like somebody is asking me to do
13 another valve job on that '79 Chevy here. I mean
14 we're going to put the state-of-the-art cut-off
15 wall and we're going to connect it to this 40 year
16 old leaker behind Spring Hill and hope for the
17 best I guess.
18 But in any event, I apologize for that
19 digression. But I kind of put it in terms that I
20 could understand and kind of relieve my confusion
21 somewhat about what was going on.
22 Apart from groundwater issues, which
23 will be dealt with by our counsel, we direct your
24 attention to the following issues and proposals.
25 That recreational uses not be entertained without
03627
1 the promised consultation with the affected
2 municipalities and that agricultural use be
3 granted significant priority. In particular, one,
4 no recreation inconsistent with the municipality's
5 development will be allowed. Number 2, no
6 recreation be allowed without the rural
7 municipality's and current hay lessees' approval.
8 Even when approved, the following
9 requirements must be acknowledged on the licence.
10 No trails or activities conducted in view of
11 adjacent residences. All trails shall be
12 installed on the inside berm and tree planting in
13 connection with those trails. Number 2, that
14 responsible property management issues addressing
15 safety, security and environmental protection,
16 including emergency response, be implemented
17 immediately. Provided a number of particulars. I
18 just want to reference a response to one of the
19 information requests of the municipality.
20 RM 3, IR number 1, it says in the
21 second last paragraph on the first page,
22 "As reflected in the wording of the
23 current Water Resources Administration
24 Act, this means that all jurisdiction
25 over and control of the floodway is
03628
1 vested in the provincial government.
2 The abutting municipalities have been
3 relieved of any responsibility for
4 it."
5 So I certainly hope that that
6 responsibility has been moved somewhere because
7 there is certainly a need for that.
8 So I think I should conclude,
9 Mr. Chairman, I've gone on probably longer. You
10 can reference some of the other specific
11 recommendations there, construction phase
12 recommendations.
13 In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, you have
14 a clear responsibility to address these concerns.
15 The imposition of thorough conditions and their
16 acceptance by the Government of Manitoba could
17 result in the project proceeding forward quickly.
18 Failure to properly address these concerns will
19 almost certainly result in the need to pursue
20 every available remedy including legal process and
21 will undoubtedly delay the project.
22 We await your decision and trust you
23 will have an enlightened sense of how best to
24 reconcile competing concerns and move the project
25 forward in a fair and equitable manner. Thank
03629
1 you.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Reeve
3 Holland. Mr. Currie?
4 MR. CURRIE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
5 I'm standing, Mr. Chairman, because I have a bit
6 of a hard time seeing the screen from behind my
7 desk and that's the only reason for that.
8 In essence, Mr. Chairman, we are
9 proceeding here this afternoon, clean-up behind
10 the reeves. And this is a presentation
11 essentially laying out our legal concerns and
12 probably formalizing our recommendations.
13 We do have in front of you our basic
14 presentation and hopefully you can follow along as
15 we go. The presentation is the efforts of
16 everybody on the team so it's not just mine and I
17 can't take that kind of credit for it. There has
18 been a lot of work on it and so it's a team
19 effort.
20 We want to talk about on our table of
21 contents today the basic position of the
22 participant municipalities. The terms of
23 reference for the CEC, the CCEAs, the case law on
24 cumulative effects and some what we call Alberta
25 Environmental Act Appeal Board decisions.
03630
1 We want to talk about a peer review
2 committee, community liaison committee and
3 compensation board for the flood and floodway
4 effects. We want to talk about three stage
5 developments, groundwater contamination and
6 groundwater discharge and finally our
7 recommendations.
8 I think we want to make it clear,
9 Mr. Chairman, and the municipalities have
10 indicated to me they want it very clear, they are
11 very much in favour of the floodway expansion and
12 the resulting protection for the City of Winnipeg.
13 It is a common sense position. No one wants us to
14 be seen as anything but that.
15 However, what we're really talking
16 about is they want the EIS design and construction
17 of the floodway to be completed in a manner which
18 considers reasonable means and ways to provide the
19 lowest risk and the highest possible protection to
20 the aquifers.
21 On first blush, when you talk about
22 lowest possible risk and highest possible
23 protection, they seem to be the same thing but
24 they are really not and we're going to hopefully
25 engage you in that thought pattern and hopefully
03631
1 you'll see our point.
2 Again, Mr. Chairman, as I did with my
3 first argument with you, if you could, as we go
4 along, just nod that you understand. I understand
5 you're not agreeing with me, you just understand
6 and it will save me from repeating anything. I
7 appreciate that.
8 What we'd like to do, Mr. Chairman, is
9 talk about in fact the risk protection reasonable
10 analysis. This is just a very simple graph and
11 it's really designed to talk about what we common
12 sense feel. Here we have a simple diagram on what
13 would be a common sense thing. The first thing is
14 that we see the Red line as what might the risk
15 be. And we are considering the risk. And, you
16 know, what we're driven to common sense is that of
17 course, the blue line is the level of protection
18 you should have. But sometimes, even though
19 common sense drives us there, we don't know what's
20 reasonable. This gap between what the risk is and
21 what reasonable is is really the critical part.
22 We need to know that because we're driven to the
23 feeling that you should have absolute protection.
24 In this case, basically, this is just
25 a simple graphic illustration of that risk
03632
1 protection and the common sense position that you
2 might take. Here is the problem that the
3 municipalities identify and the experts have
4 identified is that there are EIS weaknesses. And
5 the first weakness is the failure to properly
6 complete a baseline. We don't know where you are
7 going to start from. It's critical. There is 38
8 years of modeling of data available to the
9 proponents to get us some baseline figure, some
10 thinking to go.
11 There is a need to complete modeling
12 and a manner which takes into account the
13 intermixing of the surface water and groundwater.
14 And I don't want to go through all the evidence.
15 We've all heard it. We heard Clifton's evidence
16 where he states that he sees this model as
17 creating a plume that is much wider and broader
18 than the plume created by the MFA. And there is a
19 fundamental disagreement.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: For the record,
21 Mr. Currie, perhaps you should identify which
22 Mr. Clifton as we had two who made considerable
23 presentations before us.
24 MR. CURRIE: Sure. I'll refer to him
25 as Wayne Clifton from this point forward. A very
03633
1 good point, Mr. Chairman. Yes, it's Wayne
2 Clifton, the expert that I am referring to.
3 The other issue is that there has been
4 a failure to examine the floodway channel
5 sufficiently to establish a baseline information
6 on the springs including the number flow in their
7 geophysical strata. What do they look like? Can
8 you repair them? Is there any sense to repairing
9 them? Of course these are questions that we
10 raised in our original motion to say you need this
11 kind of information in order to go forward.
12 The next step we have is complete a
13 human health-based risk assessment, and we heard
14 Peter Hayes talk about that. We'll talk about it
15 a little more further on down the line but we're
16 just talking about the weaknesses in the EIS that
17 we see right now. We're saying there is a
18 weakness to develop a robust and sustainable
19 monitoring system for pre and post construction
20 analysis.
21 The problem that we see here is that
22 clearly, we have no where to start from. There is
23 no evidence of the beginning point. And we'll get
24 into the issue of why we find the baseline or the
25 starting point, if you will, as critical in a few
03634
1 moments.
2 We want to talk about baseline because
3 I think that there was some discussion about is
4 baseline defined. Well, it's simply not. I
5 couldn't find it in any of the statutes and I
6 couldn't find anything other than a common sense
7 definition out of the Merriam Webster on-line
8 dictionary.
9 "A set of critical observations or
10 data used for comparison or a
11 control."
12 I think that's about as common sense
13 and as clear as we can say. That's what you're
14 dealing with on a baseline. We don't need to get
15 complex about what that means. Where are we
16 starting from? That's what it's asking us to do.
17 Clifton states in his report that
18 doing a baseline is fundamental to the analysis
19 and is generally accepted practice. He goes on to
20 state in his evidence that,
21 "All monitoring needs to be reviewed
22 and monitoring should be in place, the
23 baseline completed, well before the
24 first shovel goes into the ground."
25 And I gave you the reference,
03635
1 Mr. Chairman, as to that precise quote. He was
2 not challenged on that comment.
3 On the rest of the baseline, we see
4 that Clifton goes on to say,
5 "So my question, my advice to my
6 clients was if you cannot -- if there
7 is not an adequate baseline to which
8 you can track the impacts of
9 construction, how can you make an
10 assessment as to what the impacts
11 are?"
12 If you don't know where you're
13 starting from, how do you know you made a change?
14 That's what Clifton is saying. Very common sense.
15 This is not high profile complicated engineering,
16 this is just common sense coming out.
17 "If you don't have the baseline, the
18 post construction follow-up is not
19 very meaningful."
20 And Clifton is saying this. We see Hayes
21 repeating it again. He's saying,
22 "The other item is, based on our
23 determination, there was insufficient
24 baseline water quality monitoring and
25 microbial parameters is presented in
03636
1 the EIS or other background studies
2 that we've reviewed."
3 Hayes is recognizing the same problem. We don't
4 have a baseline. We have to know where we start.
5 Clifton, Wayne Clifton, he states,
6 "So in summary, the existing project
7 remains non-compliant, certainly, at
8 least from a policy perspective.
9 Groundwater wastage continues unabated
10 within the existing channel, the
11 aquifer remains unprotected, health
12 risk assessment and potential risks to
13 the residents and to the
14 municipalities are not considered,
15 time effects looking forward into the
16 future were not considered. All of
17 those issues within the documents are
18 deferred to detailed design, and
19 that's highly irregular where there is
20 an issue that affects public welfare.
21 Public welfare issues -- one of the
22 purposes of environmental hearings are
23 so that public welfare issues may
24 obtain a full airing, and the public
25 can make a decision as to whether or
03637
1 not these issues are treated to their
2 satisfaction."
3 And I think, Mr. Chairman, we have to stop here.
4 This is a public hearing. This is intended for
5 the public. It's not just intended for experts,
6 it's not just intended for the municipalities.
7 This is actually intended for public to come here,
8 understand the EIS, not be referred to appendix,
9 appendix that have little blue arrows in them
10 where even our experts are having a hard time to
11 identify things. This EIS has to be cleaned up
12 from that perspective. It has to be a public
13 document that even Orvel can understand. Because
14 if you get that low, then everybody will
15 understand it. But right now, it's just not
16 there.
17 So when we get to here, we have to
18 remember it's a public document, it's for public
19 review and it's to be understood generally by the
20 public. And that's what Clifton is telling us.
21 And the reason that he says that is one of the
22 purposes is that it allows the public to make a
23 full airing and make sure that they had been
24 treated fairly with the information, and that's
25 the whole point. Give us the information, treat
03638
1 us fairly, let us know what we have to deal with.
2 I'd like to just go on. Clifton goes
3 on to state,
4 "They are deferred to the detailed
5 design stage. And that's not in
6 keeping, as I note, it is not in
7 keeping with generally accepted
8 practice for environmental impact
9 assessment. It is not in keeping with
10 general accepted practice for
11 environmental impact assessment.
12 Issues that are of strong public
13 concern are usually addressed in
14 detail in the impact assessment
15 documents."
16 And we're going to submit that that's a
17 fundamental flaw here, aside from the fact that,
18 you know, we see the information missing. What
19 information is there is complicated, very
20 difficult to access, very hard to understand.
21 Once it's presented of course, most reasonable
22 people can get it but you need to be able to
23 access it.
24 The problem that we have of course is
25 that this risk protection reasonable analysis now
03639
1 becomes unknown. Let's take our risk at the
2 bottom here. It may be very low, it may be very
3 high, it may be very low, it may be very high.
4 Don't risk assessment being done? Where do we put
5 reasonableness now? Look at the wavy path we
6 have, we just don't know. We may end up
7 reasonable way below the risk. We may end up with
8 reasonable way above the risk. We just don't
9 know. It's a very simple concept but a very
10 critical concept as to getting a correct baseline.
11 And with that, Mr. Chairman, have I
12 made sense, not that you agree with me, but have I
13 made sense?
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
15 MR. CURRIE: We have to add to that a
16 final concept. When you are talking about risk
17 and there is an impact on human health, and Hayes
18 hits it on the head, he says expense is part of
19 the equation when you are talking about human
20 health -- sorry, yes,
21 "Expense is part of the equation but
22 when you are talking about human
23 health, again this isn't a property
24 protection cost benefit analysis, this
25 is human health. These are the
03640
1 concerns. The dollar cost to do it
2 doesn't enter into the same magnitude
3 as it would for property protection
4 program. You need to do this
5 health-based risk assessment. And
6 it's something that there is
7 procedures and protocols out there.
8 There is the GUDI analysis. There is
9 the MPA assessment. It is relatively
10 inexpensive to do it and you will be
11 able to determine with certainty if
12 you need to go to the expense and
13 effort to upgrade the floodway to
14 preclude this groundwater/surface
15 water interaction."
16 What we're submitting, Mr. Chairman,
17 is that risk becomes significantly higher when you
18 are dealing with human health issues. And that's
19 what we're submitting we're dealing with today.
20 I'd like to run through the terms of
21 reference, Mr. Chairman, not for your benefit
22 because I'm sure the Commission and the Chairman
23 are very well aware of it, but this is a public
24 hearing, and part of being part of the public
25 hearing is to understand your mandate, to
03641
1 understand exactly why we are here and what you
2 are reviewing. I put headings on them, but
3 basically, I've pulled the terms of reference and
4 I've simply put them into four categories.
5 Environmental effects, that you are to review the
6 potential environmental, social and cultural
7 effects of the project effects, if you will. You
8 are to consider measures proposed to mitigate any
9 adverse environmental, social, economic and
10 cultural effects. You are to consider future
11 monitoring and research that may be recommended in
12 relation to the project. And finally you are to
13 consider the Sustainability Act.
14 Again, Mr. Chairman, I do that for no
15 other purpose than to finally just give, for the
16 benefit of the public, what your mandate really
17 is.
18 I want to briefly go back, and this
19 one is out of order obviously, but essentially
20 what we're going to say about the results of the
21 weakness of the EIS is that the proponent
22 concludes that there is no significant impact to
23 be made by the floodway expansion. They have done
24 no baseline. They've done no risk assessment, but
25 they've come to that conclusion.
03642
1 Well, now that leaves the
2 municipalities determining that the risk
3 protection reasonable analysis is impossible at
4 this point. You can't come to a conclusion. And
5 that will lead us to further recommendations down
6 the road.
7 I very quickly want to deal with some
8 very simple legal issues. I'm not going to deal
9 with cumulative effects in too much detail in this
10 presentation, Mr. Chairman. I have provided you
11 with my legal opinion on cumulative effects, it's
12 in the blue binder. I am going to probably avoid
13 that so that I can cut my presentation down, but I
14 do want to cover off a few, what I consider basic
15 points.
16 This one will not appear in your
17 presentation. It was put in, and I apologize, it
18 was put in later on and after I had already
19 completed my first part.
20 But essentially this is the Manitoba
21 Environment Act, and it's the definition of
22 "alter." It means to change a development or
23 proposal. And that's what we are seeing here is
24 an alteration. We have got an existing floodway
25 and this is going to be an alteration to it. And
03643
1 we see that as significant because when you get on
2 to class 3 developments, there is a review process
3 and it says, no person shall construct, and there
4 comes the word, "alter," operate or set into
5 operation any class 3 development unless you've
6 got a licence to do so, in effect.
7 Now, you have existing developments
8 coming in under 12.2. Now, nothing really turns
9 on this, but I did want to point out that clearly
10 our Environmental Act in Manitoba has considered
11 alterations of existing projects, and that you
12 have to consider licensing those alterations, and
13 that's clearly what we're here to do today.
14 Now the bigger question is, how do we
15 deal with the existing project, that is the
16 existing floodway and the alterations, if you
17 will. What is that going to do for us?
18 Well, we're not saying that you have
19 to license the existing project. It may be as a
20 result of what you do here today that that's
21 exactly what does occur in the final analysis.
22 But we are going to say, in very clear terms, you
23 have to consider the effects of the original
24 project. I don't think that can be avoided.
25 That's fundamental.
03644
1 We know that Hayes tells us the
2 widening of the floodway will increase the area
3 for infiltration along the side walls, which is a
4 significant and immeasurable incremental effect.
5 So we know that widening will have an effect.
6 Now we go to cumulative impacts or
7 effects. And this is very, we're not going to
8 deal with a whole lot of case law or anything
9 else. I want to look straight at the law, just
10 right at the section itself. It says,
11 "Factors to be considered. Every
12 screening comprehensive study of a
13 project, every mediation or assessment
14 shall include,
15 (a) the environmental effects of the
16 project, including the environmental
17 effects of malfunctions or accidents
18 that may occur in connection with the
19 project."
20 And I've highlighted this, this does not appear in
21 the statute and I've indicated so.
22 "Any cumulative environmental effects
23 that are likely to result from the
24 project in combination with other
25 projects or activities that have
03645
1 been..."
2 Have been is so clear. That's existing. I don't
3 know how we can redefine that.
4 "...that have been or will be carried
5 out."
6 Cumulative effects look at projects that exist.
7 And this is just a completion of that particular
8 section. Nothing really turns on it. I just
9 didn't want to send in part of a section and not
10 really consider the whole section in case you
11 wanted to read it yourself.
12 Here is the issue that I think is
13 critical, is that the determining factors, the
14 scope of the factors to be taken into
15 consideration pursuant to paragraph 1(a), which is
16 16.1(a), this is 16.3 (b), (c), (d), and 2(b),
17 (c), (d), by the responsible authority. Now, we
18 have to keep in mind that this is federal
19 legislation. And what they are referring to as
20 responsible authority is, of course, the
21 responsible authority for the jurisdiction within
22 which the EIS or the cumulative effects are
23 appearing. So this may be DFO, it may be
24 Infrastructure, it may be Environment, it just
25 depends on that. But it's telling us how you
03646
1 apply the cumulative effects.
2 So basically I point that out because
3 we find case law which really supports us in the
4 end as to our conclusion. And I needed to show
5 you that previous slide so that you understood the
6 absence of this particular case.
7 This is a case out of our Federal
8 Court, and it's in relation to the application of
9 section 16 of CEAA. And this is their comments.
10 "...by necessary implication, a
11 decision as to cumulative
12 environmental effects that are to be
13 considered requires a determination of
14 which other projects or activities are
15 to be taken into account. It is
16 therefore within the discretion of the
17 responsible authority to decide which
18 other projects or activities to
19 include and which to exclude for the
20 purposes of a cumulative environmental
21 effects assessment under paragraph
22 1(a)."
23 So he's saying it's somewhat up to the responsible
24 authority to make that decision. And that's why I
25 wanted to show you earlier in the section that
03647
1 applied there. However, this is what the court
2 goes on to say.
3 "The Federal Court in Friends
4 indicates that the responsible
5 authority in identifying the projects
6 or activities is not limited to
7 considering environmental effects
8 solely within the scope of the
9 project. The court found, under
10 16(1)(a), the responsible authority is
11 not limited to considering
12 environmental effects solely within
13 the scope of the project as defined in
14 subsection 15(1). Nor is it
15 restricted to considering only
16 environmental effects emanating from
17 sources within Federal jurisdiction."
18 Again, keeping in mind that this was a Federal
19 case, they are saying you can walk into Provincial
20 jurisdiction and consider the effects of those.
21 So you just don't ignore it because it doesn't
22 fall within your jurisdiction. Here is the
23 critical part I really wanted to get at, and I
24 felt obliged to give you the whole quote.
25 "Indeed, the nature of a cumulative
03648
1 effects assessment under 16(1)(a)
2 would appear to expressly broaden the
3 consideration beyond project as
4 scoped. It is implicit in a
5 cumulative effects assessment that
6 both the project as scoped and sources
7 outside that scope are to be
8 considered."
9 And of course the source that we're talking about
10 is the existing floodway.
11 What we find Friends to also say is
12 that even if a project creates no adverse effects,
13 it can exacerbate adverse effects of other
14 projects and result in significant cumulative
15 effects. The Court stated,
16 "I'm not sure it is possible to rule
17 out that a Federal project, while
18 creating no adverse effects itself,
19 could exacerbate adverse effects of
20 other projects. In any event, a
21 finding of insignificant effects..."
22 And remember that's the conclusion that we have
23 with this EIS, is that there was insignificant
24 effects,
25 "...as was made here still implies
03649
1 some effects from the bridge projects
2 themselves. It is not illogical to
3 think that the accumulation of a
4 series of insignificant effects might
5 at some point result in significant
6 effects. I do not say that is the
7 case here. I only observe that a
8 finding of insignificant effects of
9 the scoped projects is sufficient to
10 open the possibility of cumulative
11 significant environmental effects when
12 other projects are taken into account.
13 For this reason, I do not think the
14 insignificant effects finding
15 precludes the application of the
16 cumulative effects portion of
17 paragraph 16(1)(a) or 16(3) In this
18 case."
19 And what the courts are telling us is even if you
20 come to the conclusion of insignificant effects,
21 you may well have a cumulative effects application
22 and you've got to do your baseline. We have to
23 understand where we are at. We can't even do this
24 analysis without it.
25 I have brought up, Mr. Chairman, a
03650
1 number of decisions from the Alberta Environment
2 Appeal Board decisions. They are not of course
3 binding on you or in any way anything more than
4 hopefully to intrigue you and to make you think
5 about the issues in what other what I might call
6 sister panels may have considered. They are in
7 effect your sister panel out of Alberta in a
8 different way.
9 Alberta has a different function. You
10 make your application to the director. If the
11 director approves your application and someone
12 appeals against you, you end up at the Alberta
13 Environmental Appeal Board's decision.
14 Now, I have consciously not included
15 Ontario decisions and I'll tell you why, because
16 post, pre-Walkerton, Ontario had a whole different
17 Environmental Act application. It was kind of
18 odd, it was actually very difficult to deal with.
19 Post Walkerton I can basically tell you that the
20 decisions are very tight. Of course, we
21 understand why, because there is just this
22 sensitivity. So I have purposely not included the
23 Ontario or Saskatchewan decisions. And B.C., I
24 have not included either, and again because B.C.
25 has a long running history and their legislation
03651
1 is slightly different.
2 My learned friend may well disagree
3 with me, but all I can say is I certainly practice
4 in those areas and I certainly do know that
5 legislation, at least I am reasonably comfortable
6 with it.
7 I would like to continue on though and
8 say this is why I brought these ones in is because
9 they do have some, I guess consideration or
10 something you can consider. Here we have an
11 application for an approval of a dump, and they
12 are talking about that this was a single cell
13 dump. And where this appeal board comes down is
14 really found -- again I gave you the whole quote
15 as opposed to just parts of it but I really only
16 want the bottom.
17 "The Commission seemed to consider
18 modeling the whole landfill, not just
19 one cell addressed cumulative impacts.
20 Cumulative effects in the EIA..."
21 Which is Environmental Impact Assessment, EIS,
22 same thing in effect.
23 "...focus on impacts on several
24 different activities occurring in the
25 same location. Assessing cumulative
03652
1 effects gives a more complete
2 understanding of a project development
3 in the context of what already exists
4 in the area; it takes the big picture
5 into account."
6 You've got to know what you've got. Take the big
7 picture. Existing, you are altering. Take the
8 whole thing into account. Take the whole big
9 picture into account. And there is a reason for
10 that.
11 And this was -- if you remember in my
12 argument originally regarding the delay, I had
13 said to you one plus one may not add up to two in
14 these circumstances. And this is where they go
15 to. They say,
16 "For example, odour might not be a big
17 problem from a sewage lagoon or even a
18 landfill, but if you have a sewage
19 lagoon, a landfill and other odour
20 emanating situations, the cumulative
21 odour from all those sources also
22 might be unacceptable."
23 No one presented any evidence that this was taken
24 into consideration. And that's what we're saying
25 here is that there's no evidence. The baseline
03653
1 hasn't been done. We don't know.
2 This is another Alberta decision, re
3 Walker. I won't go through it in too much detail.
4 One of the issues of concern was whether
5 compliance with the environmental licence
6 regulations could be enforced on a licence issued
7 before the relevant Environmental Act came into
8 force, when the act did not provide for
9 retroactive application.
10 What we had in that set of facts,
11 Mr. Chairman was a facility, a crushing plant that
12 existed pre-Act. And it had been licenced
13 pre-Act, but not to the regulations that would be
14 post-Act.
15 We have in fact the identical
16 situation here today. We have an existing
17 facility that was created before the Environmental
18 Act and now we have the Act come into play. And
19 how do we deal with that interplay, if you will?
20 And this is how they dealt with it, if it's of any
21 value.
22 "In this appeal, the director argued
23 that any post-Act amendment to a
24 pre-Act licence should not be
25 considered by the board at all. In
03654
1 short, the director feels the pre-Act
2 licence is irrelevant to post-Act
3 appeals, although the post-Act
4 approval amended the pre-Act licence."
5 Exactly what we have here. You're going to give a
6 post-Act approval, and you're going to in effect
7 license this non-licenced or the whole facility
8 and we're going to see what the board said. The
9 board disagreed with the director. He said,
10 ignore the pre, just ignore it because it was
11 pre-Act, just ignore it.
12 "The board is of the opinion that
13 pre-Act licence amended by post-Act
14 approvals may be relevant to issues
15 raised in post-Act approvals. It may
16 be relevant in law, but it can most
17 certainly be relevant in fact."
18 So they distinguish between the legal and the
19 factual concerns.
20 "Where ongoing facilities seek
21 additions or changes to operations and
22 do so through amendments to old
23 licences, the test is not to rule out
24 the environmental effects of all
25 pre-Act facilities as a matter of
03655
1 law."
2 You just don't rule out all of those effects
3 "...simply because there is a pre-Act
4 facility involved."
5 You've got to still consider it. You have got to
6 put your baseline down. You've got to know what
7 does that pre-Act facility really do.
8 "This is potentially unfair because
9 there may be a link between the
10 existing facility and the new facility
11 sought by the amendment. In other
12 words the existing facility may indeed
13 have environmental effects that are
14 tied synergistically or
15 antagonistically to the new facility."
16 You can't separate them is what they've just
17 indicated. You have to look backwards. You have
18 to know where you're starting from, you have to
19 consider all that evidence, and then you have to
20 consider, how does it impact on the expansion?
21 They go on to say,
22 "Where transitional matters arise
23 between old and new facilities, the
24 resolution may come by way of a
25 factual determination of how the
03656
1 existing plant's activities are
2 directly linked to the new approval
3 from an environmental effects
4 perspective. If, for example, the
5 appellants raise a prima facie case
6 that pre-existing emissions from
7 ongoing activities compound the
8 emissions given by a new approval, the
9 board would hear all of the evidence
10 because it is relevant to the
11 environmental acceptability of the new
12 approval."
13 And we're going to ask the board to really
14 consider that here, that you have to consider what
15 effects that old one has on the new alteration, if
16 you will.
17 I just want to sum up on cumulative
18 effects. I don't want to spend too much time on
19 it. This is what we have submitted and this is
20 simply me, Mr. Chairman, and board members, this
21 is my conclusion on cumulative effects.
22 "A finding of insignificant effects of
23 the scoped project is sufficient to
24 open the possibility of cumulative
25 significant environmental effects when
03657
1 other projects are taken into
2 account."
3 I'm going to submit that we don't have any future
4 project considerations here. We do know that we
5 have some evidence, and that is the Wardrop
6 report, and I wanted the Wardrop report to be
7 truly interpreted correctly, because I had almost
8 heard an incorrect interpretation of it.
9 Wardrop is not saying in the year 2030
10 there will be no water left in the aquifer. What
11 Wardrop is really saying, in my opinion, is that
12 by 2030, the available sources of people who can
13 tap into that water will be finished. In other
14 words, there will be enough development done,
15 enough creation, the water will still exist but
16 it's going to top out.
17 What that also tells us, though, is
18 that that's a serious future consideration. And
19 if you look at 16(1) it said, look at the past,
20 look at the future. It may, in our submission, in
21 our expert's opinion, it may in fact change the
22 hydraulic head at that point. If you are drawing
23 down to the total capacity of the aquifer, what
24 does that do to the head? We just don't know and
25 I think that we need to know that, that's an
03658
1 additional factor.
2 In any event, I'll go on,
3 Mr. Chairman, to consider the other factors,
4 cumulative effect principles.
5 "Where ongoing facilities seek
6 addition or changes to operations and
7 do so through the amendments to old
8 licence, the test is not to rule out
9 the environmental effects of all
10 pre-Act facilities, as a matter of
11 law, simply because there is a pre-Act
12 facility involved."
13 You've got to consider the pre-Act facility.
14 I have put more detail in my legal
15 submission about what Shoemaker has to say about
16 cumulative effects. I think he's very clear, he
17 says,
18 "Most researchers recognize that site
19 specific linear cause and effect
20 analysis is not sufficient for
21 cumulative environmental effects."
22 I had to put that in more for, just to make my
23 point again that this is not a one plus one
24 analysis. It is much more than that.
25 Finally,
03659
1 "A decision as to the cumulative
2 environmental effects that are to be
3 considered requires a determination of
4 which other projects or activities are
5 to be taken into account."
6 And we're going to say this should take into
7 account the old floodway as we knew it.
8 "The nature of cumulative effects
9 assessment under 16(1)(a) would appear
10 to expressly broaden the
11 considerations beyond the project as
12 scoped."
13 So look beyond the alteration.
14 "It is implicit in a cumulative
15 effects assessment that both the
16 project as scoped and the sources
17 outside that scope are to be
18 considered.
19 Cumulative effects in EIA focus on
20 impacts from several different
21 activities occurring in the same
22 location. Assessing cumulative
23 effects gives a more complete
24 understanding of a project development
25 in the context of what already exists.
03660
1 Take the big picture into account.
2 The cumulative effects evaluation for
3 this project must include the impact
4 from the original project in addition
5 to the expansion.
6 Therefore groundwater impacts caused
7 by the original project or the
8 expansion must be eligible for
9 mitigation in the long-term, not just
10 the incremental impacts from the
11 expansion."
12 That is what we are finally going to
13 submit. That's our submission.
14 We're going to then move right into
15 our recommendations, Mr. Chairman, we have roughly
16 20 recommendations.
17 The first recommendation that we're
18 going to make is that there be an independent peer
19 review committee. And this is critical because
20 the municipalities, rightly or wrongly, have
21 viewed the MFA as essentially locked themselves
22 into a concept we refer to as project purchase.
23 They are so into protecting their project that
24 they don't feel, or at least the participants do
25 not feel they are being heard. That is the public
03661
1 feels they are not being heard. And we are
2 certainly hearing that from the municipalities.
3 That once people start down a path, and I've
4 talked about this before, it's very hard for them
5 to back up and realize, or even accept that maybe
6 they just didn't get it right. And that's a tough
7 position, very, very tough position.
8 What the municipalities are saying at
9 least is that this independent peer review
10 committee will assist with that problem, that it
11 will give them the confidence that when they bring
12 in experts, or when they have something reviewed,
13 that in fact they will be listened to. And it
14 strikes, in my submission, Mr. Chairman, it
15 strikes a nice balance. You can't have the
16 municipalities in charge where they make the final
17 decision because, of course, the opposite could
18 happen where you have a project held at ransom.
19 We submit that you can't leave the MFA
20 in charge because an issue such as deepening was
21 not conceded until February 11th, although it was
22 mentioned that it was a concern. And until the
23 start of the hearings, that issue was clearly on
24 the table.
25 As a matter of fact, we heard
03662
1 Mr. Gilroy, who hadn't quite caught up with the
2 news, telling us there was going to be continued
3 deepening.
4 So we have this critical balance, if
5 you will, and what I submit is that the balance is
6 going to be found with a peer review committee.
7 Who better to send these things to than your own
8 peers? They are the check and balance. If your
9 peers are telling you that you should change your
10 design, I'm going to submit that that's going, if
11 the MFA follows that trail, if that's the trail
12 they choose to do, notwithstanding their peers, I
13 think that that leaves them open for a huge amount
14 of criticism, a huge amount of criticism.
15 On the other hand, it doesn't allow
16 the participants the crowbar, if you will, to hold
17 them at ransom for this issue. It strikes a very
18 nice balance.
19 The question is, how do you structure
20 this peer review committee? And we're here to
21 stimulate and sort of intrigue you, not to give
22 you the final analysis. You may well have better
23 ideas than we do on this process, but certainly
24 it's intended to intrigue you.
25 We say that Manitoba Conservation
03663
1 should establish an independent review committee
2 as a third party responsible for quality assurance
3 and quality control on the implementation of a
4 final environment protection plan. And we'll talk
5 about a variety of things. And clearly the
6 health-based risk assessment, all of these things,
7 are all concerns for the municipality. You'll see
8 located in the bottom left-hand corner where I am
9 saying to you, this is your jurisdiction under
10 your mandate, if you will. I've just noted that
11 just to say, well, this is where this can appear.
12 The PRC must be given the task of reviewing a
13 human health-based risk assessment and
14 environmental construction and operations issues
15 that will arise. The PRC should be a
16 non-governmental, independent, external panel of
17 experts with representatives from both the
18 proponent and the participant municipalities. The
19 PRC will report their findings to the community
20 liaison committee.
21 Now, I know that. I had understood
22 that the MFA had considered a community liaison
23 committee and that, of course, is our second
24 recommendation is community liaison committee.
25 And that this committee of course is just an
03664
1 information receiving committee for the community.
2 And it gives them an opportunity to truly
3 understand what's going on with the floodway.
4 When we start talking about issues of
5 playing with people's groundwater, the heightened
6 sense of concern just rises naturally. We don't
7 need to hype it up, we don't need to do anything
8 with that. And in some cases people just start to
9 panic on their own. It's just a real concern. My
10 life is changing, I've got to find a new well, how
11 are my sources of water coming? You need to have
12 that community liaison committee. What becomes
13 important though is it can't just be a committee
14 just in words, it has to have structure and
15 components to it to have meaningful input. So if
16 we just simply say establish a committee and meet
17 every once in a while, and here is what's going
18 on, that's not enough. We need to have a
19 committee that receives and reviews the
20 information, and gathers, and makes its
21 recommendation to the PRC.
22 Now, the reason I say that is because
23 they are going to have their recommendations, and
24 the community liaison committee is going to want
25 to have input and at least feel like they've had
03665
1 input. And they do it to the peer review
2 committee, who then will receive the information
3 in a neutral manner and in a way that is hopefully
4 respectful. And even though they disagree with
5 people, it will still be heard.
6 Let volunteers be recruited and paid a
7 per diem to assist with the committee in its
8 objectives. A lot of these people are very well
9 rounded and knowledgeable people, and they are
10 helpful, and we need to believe to be able to say
11 that you're not doing this at a complete loss.
12 I'm not saying you pay them to be on the
13 committee, but certainly we have to compensate
14 them. Many professionals would be on that
15 committee if they could, I'm sure, and if they
16 were at least paid a per diem to assist with the
17 objectives.
18 The community liaison committee have
19 the authority to request technical support from
20 either the MFA or Manitoba Water Stewardship.
21 Look, if I don't understand a report, tell me,
22 give me the expertise to help me through the
23 report, and at least let me know what's going on.
24 Does that make sense, Mr. Chair?
25 THE CHAIRMAN: It does. Mr. Currie,
03666
1 I'd just like to point out, you have about 17
2 minutes left, you have 18 recommendations. You
3 took about five minutes each on the first two
4 recommendations, so you might want to --
5 MR. CURRIE: Speed it up.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: -- speed it up a touch
7 if you want to get through all of the
8 recommendations.
9 MR. CURRIE: Okay. Recommendation
10 number 3, the proponent do a human health based
11 risk assessment baseline. We know that there is a
12 surface water, or surface and groundwater quality
13 monitoring of microbiological parameters to
14 document the existing environment, and we need a
15 microscopic particulate analysis. Clearly there
16 is your jurisdiction.
17 We say that the proponent must
18 complete a human health based risk assessment
19 including developing a baseline monitoring
20 program. These are the four things or three
21 things that you might consider; source
22 characterization, contaminants of concern,
23 inorganic contaminants, pesticides, herbicides,
24 inventory of land use and possible contaminants.
25 We need to see that happen.
03667
1 Recommendation number 7.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: You jumped 5 and 6.
3 MR. CURRIE: Oh, they weren't that
4 important then, Mr. Chairman.
5 This is just a continuation, human
6 health based risk assessment continued. A
7 vulnerability assessment and ranking. If you
8 recall Gary, he was saying this is a fate and
9 transport analysis for each microbiological
10 contaminant. We talked about that, and what
11 became very interesting is that Gary Palmateer's
12 evidence that we need to know what we're dealing
13 with.
14 The human health based risk assessment
15 be conducted over three scenarios, the non-flood
16 operation, the flood operation and the summer
17 operation. That was Hayes' recommendation.
18 He also recommended that there be a
19 groundwater under the direct influence of surface
20 water study done, a GUDI. In effect, that's
21 somewhat similar to the original stuff, but he
22 goes on and he made that recommendation, and I
23 think we're really in support of it.
24 And there is a well head protection
25 zone necessary, and I think that we've covered
03668
1 that off in the evidence of Hayes.
2 And then recommendation number 7,
3 hydrogeological evaluation. This is Wayne
4 Clifton's comments. He says the proponent be
5 required to complete a comprehensive
6 characterization and hydrogeological evaluation of
7 each spring or blowout in the channel and submit
8 the results. We're saying to the PRC, the peer
9 review committee, we want to know what the results
10 say.
11 Modeling. The proponent be required
12 to complete a detailed predictive model to
13 evaluate the surface water to groundwater
14 interaction at each location and submit the
15 results to the PRC.
16 Again, we have some comments on
17 modeling, Mr. Chairman, and I want to go through
18 them briefly. But modeling is only one tool,
19 Mr. Clifton said that, Wayne Clifton stated that.
20 It's only one tool in the whole basket, if you
21 will. You've got to know what's exactly there,
22 and then you use your model to hopefully predict
23 what will come from it. So that's our position on
24 it. Even though modeling is necessary, it's only
25 part of it.
03669
1 There's a base flow monitoring
2 required. How much water is going down that
3 channel?
4 Groundwater loss, the proponent
5 addressed the issue of groundwater loss from the
6 aquifer and provide mitigation measures to utilize
7 the water and submit their analysis to the PRC.
8 Again, we need the peer review committee to
9 decide. That comes under sustainability, surely
10 if not environment, but I just wanted to point
11 that out.
12 Water monitoring, these are things you
13 would have seen in the reports so far. The
14 proponent provide to the PRC a proactive water
15 quality and monitoring and mitigation program
16 prior to any construction dewatering. The
17 proponent provide a reactive procedure and
18 protocol to deal with adverse water quality and
19 quantities. And the proponent continue the
20 reactive procedure and protocol to deal with
21 adverse water quality and quantity effects during
22 the operations phase.
23 And again, these are the two areas
24 that we are submitting are covered in your
25 process.
03670
1 This leads us to what I consider the
2 most fundamental of the recommendations and the
3 key to the whole set of recommendations that might
4 be done. And this is a three stage construction
5 of the floodway and that three construction
6 licences be considered.
7 We can't see it very well here, but I
8 can't adjust it necessarily, but we will see stage
9 1 as the stage from the inlet structure to roughly
10 Trans Canada Highway. Don't hold me to any
11 parameters on this map. The Red stage, or stage 2
12 is roughly Trans Canada Highway to Spring Hill,
13 and then of course stage 3 is roughly beyond that
14 to the outlet structure.
15 Stage 1, the inlet structure to Trans
16 Canada Highway, what we're submitting is there's
17 no identified constraints right now, so let the
18 construction begin. The clay underlay is thick
19 and protective and appears to be doing okay. The
20 only concern is that Hayes says there's some
21 reactivity going on in the area. We don't know
22 what it is, and you may want to find that out
23 before you actually construct. But he's saying
24 from an intellectual point of view at least,
25 everything seems to be looking normal.
03671
1 Construction, including bridges can
2 start upon completion of the human health based
3 risk assessment for that segment if it's
4 proceeding this summer.
5 Stages 2 and 3 licence requirements,
6 and we put them together, 2 and 3, but before you
7 start construction in stage 2, establish a
8 baseline with monitoring in stage 2, install,
9 maintain and operate a comprehensive groundwater
10 monitoring program, including wells along both
11 sides of the right-of-way for the entire length of
12 the channel north of the Trans Canada Highway.
13 And you will recall that that's
14 Hayes's suggestion, well monitoring on a grid
15 basis as suggested by Hayes on two kilometre
16 centres, six kilometres out.
17 Stage 2 and 3 licence continued,
18 before you issue these two construction licences,
19 ensure there's a human health based risk
20 assessment. Do your microbiological analysis,
21 baseline data on the springs including number,
22 flow and geophysical strata. 38 years of modeling
23 can be taken into account. And the intermixing of
24 the surface and groundwater, the modeling issues
25 can be cleaned up. And the environmental
03672
1 protection plan can be completed for meaningful
2 public input.
3 Stage 2, stage 3, we've talked about
4 them, Trans Canada Highway to Spring Hill and
5 beyond Spring Hill, and we're just saying it
6 provides sufficient time to implement a
7 comprehensive monitoring program and to conduct
8 further information.
9 We want this recommendation in because
10 again, we are looking at the critical issues
11 regarding public transparency and public
12 involvement.
13
14 (OFF THE RECORD DISCUSSION)
15
16 MR. CURRIE: That they seek ways to
17 increase the public transparency of the scientific
18 data and the scientific rationales upon which
19 their decisions are based.
20 We need public input. We need to have
21 the MFA and Water Stewardship tell us what they
22 will do for us on a public basis.
23 Communicate the results to the
24 community liaison committee and the data and
25 rationales upon which the risk assessment and the
03673
1 decisions are based should be available to public
2 review generally.
3 Those are general recommendations to
4 support a public involvement, and it's a true
5 public involvement.
6 The MFA officials exercise great care
7 to maintain an objective and neutral stance with
8 respect to the public debate about risks and
9 benefits of the human health based risk assessment
10 and interpretations of the process.
11 We just need to have people who will
12 listen. You may not have to agree with us, but at
13 least let the public be heard.
14 That ALARA be a guiding principle.
15 ALARA is as low as reasonably achievable. That
16 the principle should guide the independent review
17 committee and be applied to reduction of risk of
18 long-term aquifer contamination and to reduction
19 of groundwater flow into the channel. That the
20 ALARA principle should apply to conservation and
21 protection of groundwater, and that the MFA
22 evaluate alternatives that would achieve these
23 objectives. We want there to be a principle to be
24 attached to this.
25 Recommendation number 14, that they
03674
1 comply with all legislation and regulations
2 governing groundwater management in Manitoba.
3 Bill 22 guidelines and requirements be met --
4 Exhibit 75, you have it -- the Manitoba
5 Sustainability Act, policies and guidelines will
6 be met if you force this recommendation.
7 The proponent be subject to all
8 regulations that govern all other water uses,
9 including obtaining necessary permits and
10 preparing a groundwater management plan. That the
11 proponents be subject to public review during
12 water rights applications, again for meaningful
13 public involvement.
14 This is one that becomes critical for
15 the public that are left in the end. This is
16 something that has to be dealt with fairly
17 quickly. It's our submission that they establish
18 a compensation dispute resolution mechanism. The
19 last thing you want to do is have some family of
20 four who has a problem, and they can't prove that
21 there was any clear connection between the
22 floodway, other than the temporal connection of
23 there was a flood event and my well is now
24 problematic.
25 And we don't want to extend this into
03675
1 the courts. It's too costly. We know the cost of
2 litigation. We want a system that is clear, got
3 appeal to it, and can really be effective for
4 public input, and public use, not input but use.
5 We would recommend full effects
6 accounting, that all costs of mitigating,
7 construction and operating impacts of the project
8 on groundwater accrue to the MFA in perpetuity and
9 not fall to the municipalities and their
10 residents.
11 In this case, it may well, as I've
12 been told, the MFA is going to exist, it does
13 exist, it's going to continue to exist past this
14 project and they are the people that are
15 responsible.
16 We would submit that all
17 recommendations should be binding on the operator
18 as well as the proponent. There's no point in
19 giving the recommendations only on the proponent,
20 who will then shift and say, oh, my goodness,
21 that's an operating concern and therefore we
22 don't, we're not bound by it. It just is common
23 sense if you will.
24 The Kildare outfall to floodway be
25 mitigated immediately. I think that it's just
03676
1 impossible to continue with that kind of process
2 with raw sewage being dumped in there. It just
3 can't go on. The reeves have talked about it --
4 and let me just see if this works now, I think
5 there's a problem. We say that the operations
6 licence should be reviewed in five years to
7 determine if any adverse environmental effects.
8 So that we have a review, that there is something
9 to come back to and look at. That the public
10 review be invited at that point, to consider their
11 issues and that this purpose is to allow an
12 analysis of the success of the mitigation
13 strategies and do a state of the environment
14 consideration.
15 I want to talk about some final
16 conclusions. Risk, risk of groundwater/surface
17 water interaction is real and therefore risk of
18 aquifer contamination is real. We heard Pete
19 Hayes say that, this is a real concern, it's not
20 pie in the sky. Those were his exact words, this
21 is not pie in the sky stuff.
22 Microbiological pathogens are emerging
23 and their persistence and viability is longer now
24 than historically. We know we've got emerging
25 pathogens.
03677
1 Gary Palmateer, speaking about the new
2 bacteria, what I really found interesting was,
3 "The low nutrient environment and
4 groundwater is certainly not where E.
5 coli normally reside. As a result,
6 they are not going to survive that
7 long. However, there are few bacteria
8 that haven't read that book."
9 And I laughed when he said it, because it is
10 really telling us that we do have bacteria out
11 there, and he identifies the two that could get in
12 there and have some sustainability in an aquifer.
13 When human health is at stake and,
14 therefore, when erring on the side of
15 probabilities, that those probabilities that
16 favour protection should be encouraged and
17 followed.
18 And that's basically the submission,
19 Mr. Chairman, of the RM.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much,
21 Mr. Currie, that was exactly one hour to the
22 minute.
23 Could I just ask briefly, Mr. Currie,
24 what this booklet of cumulative effects case law,
25 what do you wish us to take from this?
03678
1 MR. CURRIE: Everything
2 Mr. Chairman -- no.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: As a relatively recent
4 student of law, do you expect us to read the whole
5 thing or just the headnotes, or have you
6 highlighted the parts that we should?
7 MR. CURRIE: I believe there is one
8 copy with highlighted in it. I couldn't get
9 through to highlight the other copies. I think
10 what I really put that forward to is because I
11 think you're going to have to have either Mr. Abra
12 or one of your other consultants review it and
13 tell you whether I've read the cases correctly or
14 not. And I meant to get Mr. Abra a copy, but I
15 can tell him it was absconded and taken from me by
16 my clients, and I apologize. But I really -- the
17 point being, Mr. Chairman, is that everything I
18 talked about in my presentation is in fact backed
19 up in that submission. That is, that you have to
20 take into account the pre-existing floodway in
21 effect.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Who
23 has the highlighted copy? That would be helpful
24 if we were to have the highlighted, or one of us
25 were to have the highlighted.
03679
1 MR. CURRIE: I'm sure you do actually.
2 Somebody must.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, we'll try and
4 sort that out.
5 MR. CURRIE: Okay, great.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: There were two or three
7 pages in your overhead presentation that were
8 missing. I mean, you read them into the record,
9 but still would it be possible to get copies of
10 those sent to my office?
11 MR. CURRIE: Of course, Mr. Chairman.
12 My apologies, it was just last minute.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: That's fine. Thank you
14 very much, Mr. Currie. Thank you very much,
15 reeves, deputy reeve. That concludes your
16 presentation, or your final arguments. Thank you.
17 We'll take a break, we'll come back at five after.
18
19 (Proceedings recessed at 2:50 p.m. and
20 reconvened at 3:00 p.m.)
21
22 THE CHAIRMAN: We have two more
23 closing comments or closing statements today.
24 First up is the Coalition for Flood Protection
25 North of the Floodway, which will be, the
03680
1 presentation will be made by Mr. Jonasson and
2 Mr. Chorney. Mr. Chorney hasn't been sworn in.
3 Please state your name for the record?
4 MR. CHORNEY: Doug Chorney.
5 (DOUG CHORNEY: SWORN)
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jonasson.
7 MR. JONASSON: Thank you, we have some
8 members of our coalition here, but many of them
9 are working so they are not here. First I would
10 like to start by introducing who we do have here.
11 Sheila Jonasson, she is here to kick me in the
12 ribs if I don't have a disciplined kind of
13 approach. Doug Chorney, who has just introduced
14 himself. We have Archie Trapp, former Reeve,
15 former MLA, very interested in this process. And
16 we have -- we call him AKA but his name really is
17 Norm Smith. Thank you.
18 First I would like to address the
19 panel and let you know that we recognize that you
20 have a very, very difficult task. You have to
21 serve your political masters, but your job is to
22 protect the environment and make sure that
23 whatever is done, everyone affected by this
24 process is safe.
25 My closing remarks will be more
03681
1 extensive and detailed than I ever imagined at the
2 start of this process. It was impossible to
3 anticipate the level of arrogance, contempt, and
4 disdain demonstrated by the MFA through its
5 principal spokesperson and a paid consultant
6 toward individuals and groups presenting what they
7 believed were issues of genuine concern.
8 We don't all hold engineering degrees,
9 although some of our members do, but unlike the
10 engineers with the MFA, we know that we possess
11 knowledge that is relevant to the issues at hand
12 as that presented here by the MFA engineers and
13 their consultants. Being told that our agendas
14 were based on politicking and that our assertions
15 with respect to expanded floodway were basically
16 lies, this has left with us a feeling that the
17 purpose of these hearings, at least on the part of
18 the MFA, was to trivialize our concerns and
19 discredit the expert witnesses.
20 I might add at this point that our
21 expert witnesses were chosen simply because they
22 are considered amongst the foremost experts in the
23 nation in the areas chosen for their testimony.
24 We were further astounded or upset to
25 find, on returning to the hearings last week, that
03682
1 one of our expert witnesses would not be asked to
2 return because, in effect, he disagreed with the
3 assertions of the proponent.
4 I want to thank the chair for his
5 sense of fairness demonstrated by his agreement to
6 bring back our witness. This demonstrated to me
7 and to fellow members of our coalition that there
8 was a genuine attempt by the Commission to get at
9 the truth.
10 Some history: Our group was formed
11 because of the longstanding record of poor
12 treatment by the government and its agencies of
13 flood victims living north of the floodway outlet.
14 And I'm going to stop here now and direct your
15 attention to what is up on the board.
16 In the displays the Floodway Authority
17 presents, and they presented it in the last hotel
18 and out at Oakbank, they never once in their
19 display showed the flood area north of the
20 floodway. It doesn't appear in any of their
21 documents that I can find. This comes out of a
22 document that was done by KGS. And what it shows,
23 if I can stand up for just a minute? It is called
24 the historic overflow path. In 1950, you remember
25 Scotia Street and all of the problems that they
03683
1 had, and every time there is a flood, Scotia
2 Street has a problem. There is an area of the
3 bank of the river from almost the Redwood Bridge
4 well into West St. Paul that is very low. It is
5 the beginning of what one would call a swale.
6 It is known as a swale and it is big,
7 really, really big. This area here, I don't know,
8 it is somewhere in the neighborhood of four miles.
9 This part of the swale is now known as the bog, or
10 was known as the bog. It is now Oak Hammock
11 Marsh. It has been drained and is being used for
12 agriculture now. But prior to the flood proofing
13 primary dykes, this was a natural overflow. In
14 1826, the water did not all go past Selkirk, it
15 went around Selkirk. This was Selkirk's original
16 floodway. It has been taken away.
17 We've had difficulty getting this
18 issue before the Water Branch and before anyone
19 until now, and I want to thank you for this
20 opportunity to be able to do that.
21 We don't know how much relief that
22 gave to the Red River, and to Winnipeg, or into
23 Selkirk, because we've had meetings with the Water
24 Resources Branch, they told us they did not have
25 enough data, there wasn't enough data to show them
03684
1 the elevations of this, and therefore, they
2 couldn't apply MIKE 11 or other such models to it.
3 This is key to our assertion that in fact the
4 floodway and flood protection measures that were
5 put in place since the '60s do have an effect
6 downstream of the floodway.
7 Since 1999 we have met with decision
8 makers, that is the politicians and the
9 bureaucrats who are there to do the bidding, their
10 bidding, in an effort to have them address our
11 concerns. Having participated in a round of
12 public meetings in January, I believe it was 2002,
13 and seeing our concerns completely ignored by the
14 Premier, who incidentally has refused to meet with
15 our group -- and I have transparency as a question
16 mark there -- we then met with the Federal
17 Manitoba caucuses, and individual Federal
18 Ministers including Minister Duhamel, Minister
19 Pagtakhan, Minister Thiebault and finally Minister
20 Alcock. None of the political decision makers can
21 claim that we haven't made our concerns known.
22 Having exhausted all legitimate
23 avenues to have our concerns met, we decided to
24 concentrate our efforts on putting together a
25 well-documented presentation that involved notable
03685
1 experts to plead our case before the CEC.
2 We had pinned our hopes on this
3 process, a process we believe was designed to seek
4 out the truth. We were soon disavowed of this
5 belief at our first meeting with the chair of the
6 CEC. We were told that the scope of the upcoming
7 hearings would be so narrow as to exclude
8 virtually all of our concerns.
9 On seeing the content of the
10 proponent's EIS, this narrow scope was indeed
11 confirmed. The proponent had decided that the
12 scope of the EIS would be confined to the
13 environmental impact of the difference between the
14 existing floodway and the new expanded floodway.
15 At this point we concluded that the process now
16 for us would simply be gathering evidence for
17 upcoming court action.
18 The conclusion of the proponent's EIS,
19 that the expanded floodway, its construction and
20 its operation would have no significant
21 environmental impact, was so absurd as to be
22 incomprehensible to anyone who had any knowledge
23 of the proposed floodway expansion.
24 Following is a description of the some
25 of the astonishing developments during the
03686
1 progress of these hearings. In our wildest dreams
2 we never imagined that this would turn into a
3 one-sided battle being fought through the media,
4 to which it seems the MFA had unbridled access.
5 There have been a number of articles by the CEO of
6 the MFA indicating that the floodway expansion
7 would have little or no environmental negatives on
8 anyone, and would be a marvelous flood protection
9 measure for everyone in the valley. Brochures
10 printed prior to the hearings stated, among other
11 things, that the floodway would never, never be
12 operated in the summer. This is a pamphlet, and I
13 will give you a copy of it, put out by the
14 Department of Conservation. It is a brochure.
15 Another story in the Free Press
16 indicated that the expanded floodway would have a
17 negative impact on areas north of its outlet.
18 Never once did the Department of Conservation,
19 Water Stewardship, the Department of Health, or
20 the MFA let the general public, and specifically
21 those living in close proximity to the floodway,
22 that their way of life and perhaps their very life
23 was being threatened by the existing floodway.
24 It was only through the work of our
25 expert witness that we discovered that the City of
03687
1 Winnipeg was dumping raw sewage into the floodway.
2 This site is so contaminated that in other
3 provinces it would have been immediately posted
4 and determined to be a hazardous site, and an
5 order would be given to clean it up. To the best
6 of our knowledge, not only has it not been cleaned
7 up, tests performed by our expert witnesses, and
8 now being performed by the City of Winnipeg,
9 indicate sewage still flows into the floodway.
10 While some of us knew that the
11 floodway was draining pristine water from the two
12 principal aquifers located in the municipalities
13 through which it runs, no one realized the extent
14 of the draw-down, enough water we are told to
15 supply a city of approximately 30,000 people. The
16 draw-down could be represented by a lake in places
17 14 kilometres wide, in excess of 50 kilometres
18 long, and 30 feet deep at its deepest point.
19 This, while the municipality of East St. Paul is
20 suffering from a water shortage. To add insult to
21 injury, the municipality is being asked to pay for
22 half the cost of moving their water line across
23 the new expanded floodway.
24 My wife Sheila and I and our daughter
25 Julia live at the end of Hay Road near Lockport.
03688
1 I learned through the work of our expert witness
2 that the water in a monitoring well halfway down
3 Hay Road, between us and the floodway, showed a
4 dramatic increase in conductivity during and
5 following operations of the floodway, indicating I
6 believe the intrusion of surface water into the
7 aquifer.
8 I asked the question, whose
9 responsibility was it to inform my neighbors and I
10 that this was happening, and why was it never
11 done? In our area, it is no longer a question of
12 is there a possibility, or is it probable that
13 polluted surface water can enter the aquifer? The
14 answer is, it does.
15 There is no longer doubt in our minds
16 that the existing floodway will be expanded, as
17 will be expanded, creates devastating effects in
18 the form of exacerbation of ice jamming and the
19 consequent flooding, an increase in flood levels
20 without ice jamming. It will increase the rate of
21 erosion as the river is being forced to convey
22 more water than historically it ever carried in
23 the reach north of the City of Winnipeg. That's
24 why the map. We have to find out how much water
25 traditionally ran around Selkirk. Because say it
03689
1 is 50,000 CSF, when we build this new floodway and
2 we push all of that water down, the river will be
3 asked to carry 50,000 CFS more than it was ever
4 asked to carry. The results of that obviously are
5 going to be a river, a small river trying to
6 expand, and having to expand to carry that volume.
7 So there is going to be tremendous increase in
8 erosion.
9 The assertion that the floodway has
10 absolutely no impact downstream of its outlet has
11 for 38 years prevented the City of Selkirk and its
12 residents, and the residents of East Selkirk,
13 Breezy Point, St. Peters and Petersfield from
14 accessing highly deserved and legally required
15 flood compensation and funds that would be
16 available for flood compensation. The Floodway
17 Authority asserts that even though approximately
18 half of the Cooks Creek drainage area has been
19 diverted into the floodway -- and I just want to
20 tell you that the Cooks Creek natural drainage
21 outlet is north of Selkirk. We are now putting
22 that water into the floodway, and it now comes out
23 at Lockport, south of the city.
24 The floodway has, we are told,
25 following the 1997 flood been made 3 per cent more
03690
1 efficient by notching the east berm. If it is 3
2 per cent efficient, more efficient taking water
3 in, it is going to be 3 per cent more efficient in
4 pouring that water into the river south of
5 Selkirk.
6 There was a discussion today about
7 compression of water, and I think it was agreed
8 that you can't do that. There obviously is an
9 impact.
10 And then finally we have, what we have
11 on the board here, post 1960's construction of
12 flood protection measures cut off Selkirk's
13 natural floodway. That these measures have no
14 effect downstream of the outlet is -- I think it
15 is a fragmented sentence -- but you can't assert,
16 I believe, that there is no impact downstream.
17 This assertion has been repeated so often, so many
18 times by engineers at the Water Resources Branch
19 that now I think they believe it is true.
20 Assertions by our members that this
21 is, or there is an increase in the frequency and
22 the ferociousness of ice jams was met with, those
23 people don't know anything about the river and
24 about ice jams. That is really a difficult
25 statement for us to accept, because we see it. I
03691
1 don't how many of the engineers that were involved
2 in these reports have watched it. The engineers
3 chose to rely on models which create a virtual
4 reality, over the observed reality as recorded in
5 the eyes of our members and in their cameras. We
6 don't live in a virtual world. The height of the
7 water backed up by ice jamming set an all time
8 record in 1996, which was broken again in the
9 spring of 2004, during the operation of the
10 floodway following a year of drought in 2003. We
11 think, we believe that observed reality trumps
12 virtual reality. This is not a computer game.
13 A new law has been passed by our
14 legislature. This new law, the Floodway Act,
15 provides for full compensation if one is flooded
16 artificially because of the operation of the
17 future expanded floodway. It further states that
18 the process to handle this compensation is to be
19 administered by an essentially volunteer
20 organization called "Emergency Measures
21 Organization" or EMO. Appeals in this process
22 will be handled by a committee also under the
23 jurisdiction of the EMO. That seems to be a bit
24 of a conflict.
25 In answer to a question how this law
03692
1 would function, particularly for the people
2 downstream of the floodway, the MFA stated
3 categorically, there would be no compensation, as
4 flooding downstream would not be artificial, it
5 would be deemed to be natural. How is it possible
6 that the MFA could make this determination?
7 First, I don't think it is their mandate to do so.
8 Second, it demonstrates a clear bias against
9 downstream residents.
10 Given past behaviour of the Water
11 Resources Branch, the EMO, and various departments
12 of government that were responsible for providing
13 compensation to those artificially flooded in
14 1997 -- and this is the shocking thing -- a number
15 of whom have not received settlement to this very
16 day, it is apparent that this Act will do nothing
17 to prevent the ongoing traumatization of flood
18 victims. This Act also shelters those in charge
19 of operating the floodway from being sued, even if
20 they operate it in an incompetent or negligent
21 manner. It does little to inspire confidence in
22 potential future flood victims. It allows access
23 to the court only if the flood victim can prove
24 that the government and its agencies or its
25 employees acted with malice or forethought.
03693
1 Clearly, this legislation, presented
2 as compensation for flood victims, is presented as
3 compensation for flood victims, but in reality it
4 is potential for the government, its agencies, and
5 its employees. The residents downstream of the
6 floodway have lost all trust in government.
7 It seems fundamentally unfair that the
8 residents of the City of Winnipeg, protected for
9 possibly 700 years, while those living upstream,
10 downstream and in the municipalities through which
11 it flows are not even being compensated for the
12 hardship the floodway causes. On the whole, they
13 receive no benefit, but their groundwater is
14 diminished and possibly polluted, transportation
15 is severely impacted, overland flooding and
16 flooding due to ice jams is exacerbated. The only
17 form of mitigation that's being offered is
18 additional sand bags for the City of Selkirk. And
19 I ask the question, since when is sand bagging
20 mitigation? I don't think so. Only in Manitoba.
21 Give you another example, in the
22 United States no one was left unprotected when it
23 was decided to flood proof, that the mighty
24 Mississippi was to be flood proofed, no city,
25 village, town, farm, resident, was left
03694
1 unprotected. And I understand the protection
2 starts at one in 750 years in the upper regions of
3 the Mississippi, and increases as the river moves
4 south to a level of one in 1,200 years. We know
5 there that are other viable flood protection
6 measures that could have been chosen which would
7 have protected far greater numbers of residents
8 than simply the floodway expansion.
9 This solution leaves a vast area of
10 southern Manitoba subject to flooding and,
11 therefore, an economic wasteland. There is little
12 possibility of growth and development in that area
13 if it is known to experience extreme flooding.
14 Perhaps it will become known as Doer's dead zone.
15 Studies of the conditions with respect
16 to groundwater during the drought of the 1930s,
17 and prediction of drought as a result of climate
18 change, indicate that in the future the problem of
19 too little water will be greater than the current
20 problem of too much water.
21 Everyone in this room should know that
22 in 1934 the reach of the Red River that runs
23 through Fargo to Grand Forks had no water in it
24 for a period of 150 days. The Red River is the
25 source of these cities drinking water.
03695
1 In 2003 a number of wells in East St.
2 Paul ceased to produce. This in the single year
3 of drought, the drought of 2003. We must find a
4 way to capture the pristine water that is being
5 lost through the floodway. Fundamentally, it
6 makes good sense to devote more resources to
7 protect our pristine groundwater than it does to
8 protect property that can be rehabilitated. Our
9 children and our children's children should never
10 have to speak the phrase, why didn't they do it
11 right in the first place?
12 Now, before we go into the
13 recommendations, Doug Chorney has a number things
14 to say.
15 MR. CHORNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
16 At the pre-hearing meeting on January 31, you gave
17 the participants assurance that in the event of
18 compelling evidence being presented to the
19 Commission, that in fact it may not be recommended
20 that a licence for this project would be put
21 forward by the Commission.
22 I think that what we have seen over
23 the course of these hearings is compelling
24 evidence to suggest that there is a direct
25 connection between the expanded floodway project
03696
1 and environmental impacts, both north and south of
2 the city.
3 I also think that the City of Winnipeg
4 is going to require a great deal of infrastructure
5 improvements to truly benefit from this project
6 which has been addressed. And in fact, there are
7 800 homes, I believe that was in the transcript,
8 not protected in the 700 year flood event.
9 So I think in fact here we are at the
10 end of the hearings, this evidence has been put
11 before the Commission and I beg you to consider
12 it.
13 Mr. Gilroy, on February 15, made
14 remarks to the Commission and he called the
15 floodway project an engineering marvel. And I, on
16 the other hand, would consider it more of an
17 accounting marvel. And I believe the numbers
18 being used to describe the capital cost of the
19 project were $665 million. Since this project,
20 and that's been the number roughly that we have
21 heard for quite some time.
22 Through the past year I know that we
23 have seen escalating energy costs, specifically
24 diesel fuel. Steel costs have escalated, we have
25 many requirements for steel and bridge
03697
1 construction. Yet there has been no change in the
2 capital cost of the project.
3 In the article by Andrew Buck in the
4 Selkirk Journal on March 4, Minister Ashton
5 explains that $100 million has been spent to
6 tailor the floodway expansion for reducing the
7 potential for adverse effects on groundwater.
8 Never heard a thing about that in the total
9 project cost. I think, you know what they say,
10 $100 million here, $100 million there, pretty soon
11 you are talking real money.
12 When we are talking, and Dr. Webster
13 alluded to this, this morning, about the cost to
14 benefit ratio and what the costs were of maybe
15 improving flood protection south of the city,
16 maybe we need to look at the total capital costs
17 of this project. And I ask that the funding
18 partners in this project read here in the
19 transcripts that they should ask the same
20 questions, because I think the Floodway Authority
21 is moving forward without addressing the changes
22 in capital costs of the project properly. Thank
23 you.
24 MR. JONASSON: Thanks, Doug. We will
25 now go through our recommendations, or we would
03698
1 like to see them as conditions under which a
2 licence may be granted.
3 First, the area north of the outlet of
4 Lake Winnipeg on both sides of the river be
5 carefully studied through gathering accurate data
6 so that accurate flood predictions and flood
7 protection can be made available to those living
8 in that area. I understand from Doug McNeil that
9 in fact a Lidar survey has been completed, so at
10 least that's a start.
11 That a study be done to determine the
12 capacity of the historical overland flow from
13 North Winnipeg and West of Selkirk to the lake.
14 And that's the one that I referred to up there.
15 The residents of the City of Selkirk
16 and all others downstream of the floodway outlet
17 must receive equal flood protection as that given
18 to the residents of the City of Winnipeg. If this
19 cannot be done, mitigation measures must be
20 mandated and/or properties that cannot be
21 protected should be purchased. I'm going to just
22 mention here that two of our members, since we
23 have started this process, have declared
24 bankruptcy because they couldn't pay off the loans
25 that they took out to cover the protection that
03699
1 they put around their houses, because essentially
2 they were flooded because the levels north of the
3 floodway are different than the levels south of
4 the floodway. But I will get into that in a
5 minute.
6 Proactive measures must be put in
7 place to safeguard and preserve groundwater along
8 the entire reach of the expanded floodway. We
9 didn't go into this in any detail because it has
10 already been covered by the municipalities.
11 But we also believe that there must be
12 a commitment given to provide clean safe drinking
13 water to any resident or community whose water
14 becomes tainted or drawn down as a result of the
15 floodway construction and/or its operation. We
16 believe that a dollar amount like $11 million may
17 not be enough to supply a community with a
18 replacement water supply. And I would refer you
19 particularly to the area that's west of the
20 floodway in St. Clements, where I live, where the
21 water, floodway water or surface water has been
22 detected. And because the flow of the groundwater
23 is apparently east to west, this is probably in my
24 mind the most vulnerable area.
25 An immediate study of the phenomena of
03700
1 ice jamming must be initiated and measures taken
2 to mitigate against this escalating problem. We
3 are not lying when we say this is an escalating
4 problem. It is. The frequency and the ferocity
5 is very, very clear. And it is an issue that just
6 has to be addressed, whether or not it is
7 compounded by the operation of the floodway. We
8 believe it is, but we have two experts, one saying
9 no and the other one saying yes.
10 New regulations must be developed for
11 the area downstream of the floodway so that the
12 owners of all residences, and city and municipal
13 authorities can access funds for flood protection
14 and compensation. Now I say new regulations,
15 because there is a flood protection program, I
16 believe it is over now, that was put in place
17 after 1997. And it said you will get some funding
18 from the province if you protect to the 1997
19 level. So people north of the floodway did that,
20 except that the 1997 level had already been
21 exceeded in 1996 north of the floodway, and now we
22 have the extra height achieved in 2004. It is
23 just incomprehensible that those kind of measures
24 were used. Two of our members did it, and got
25 flooded in 2001.
03701
1 Measures must be taken to prevent,
2 mitigate against, and/or protect residences,
3 municipal and city infrastructures, historic
4 sites, churches and graveyard. Downstream of the
5 floodway outlet, Lower Fort Garry, the Church at
6 St. Peters, the graveyard at St. Peters, there are
7 a number of -- the church just south of Lower Fort
8 Garry, it lost a great deal of its property in
9 1997 as a result of erosion. I don't think this
10 whole issue of erosion has been looked at. My
11 characterization of a river that may have been
12 called upon to have 100,000 CFS historically being
13 asked now to carry whatever it is going to be
14 carrying.
15 The resumption of dredging of the
16 river bottom and its outlet to Lake Winnipeg must
17 be resumed post haste. The general consensus is
18 that silt build-up on the bottom of the river has
19 contributed to the ice jamming phenomena. It may
20 not be just the operation of the floodway, but the
21 river is much, much shallower in many places than
22 it ever was. The river was dredged from 1884 to
23 1996. Actually dredging was slowed down in about
24 1992 and completely abolished in 1996.
25 Measures must be taken to protect the
03702
1 lift bridge at Selkirk from damage from ice. I
2 want to explain, this bridge experienced ice
3 hitting its lower horizontal beams for the first
4 time ever in the ice jam that occurred spring of
5 2004, following again a summer of drought in 2003.
6 A legislated committee, by that I mean
7 a committee that's not just promised, it is there
8 by law, be given the responsibility and the
9 funding necessary to monitor and care for the
10 health of the environment affected by the Red
11 River north of the floodway and in the communities
12 it runs through.
13 And to get at the problems of people
14 being traumatized by flooding and then further
15 traumatized by the process of seeking
16 compensation, we suggest that a flood agreement
17 must be developed in order for persons affected by
18 flooding upstream and downstream of the floodway,
19 where they are automatically compensated without
20 having to go through the rigorous process
21 involving the courts. This process is often as
22 traumatic as the flooding itself, and as is the
23 case now, unable to provide reasonable remedy.
24 Imagine being artificially flooded and losing
25 everything, and then having to go to court to be
03703
1 compensated, only to have government lawyers stall
2 the process for more years than are allowed under
3 the statute of limitations. That's happening
4 right now. Ask the more than dozen people who
5 have not been compensated for the flood of 1997.
6 This flood agreement should be crafted by the
7 government with representative residents and
8 officials from cities, towns, and municipalities
9 affected, and should be administered by a
10 department other than the department that is
11 responsible for floodway operations.
12 A new rule for floodway operation
13 should prohibit its use for anything other than
14 potential catastrophic spring flooding. It should
15 specifically exclude floodway operations to
16 compensate for the deficiencies in then City of
17 Winnipeg sewer system and the protection of the
18 walkways at The Forks.
19 The possibility of domestic sewage
20 entering the floodway through this storm outlet at
21 Transcona must be reduced to zero. The claim by
22 the city that the problem has been fixed may be
23 valid at this moment, but it can and will happen
24 again. We are told that there is in excess of 20
25 cross connections between the storm and domestic
03704
1 sewers in Transcona. And that an engineering
2 solution that eliminates all connections between
3 domestic sewage and surface storm water drains
4 must be put in place.
5 On behalf of the members of our
6 coalition, the Coalition for Flood Protection
7 North of the Floodway, the municipal councils of
8 St. Clements, St. Andrews, East St. Paul, West St.
9 Paul, Springfield, and our supporters in the City
10 of Selkirk, I respectfully submit our summary of
11 this process and this series of recommendations.
12 I would also like to point out that the coalition
13 whole-heartedly supports the staged
14 construction -- it should be licencing -- as
15 presented by the three municipalities that will
16 allow for the necessary data gathering in support
17 of mitigation measures to protect the groundwater
18 and address all other issues arising at these
19 hearings.
20 We wish to thank the Commissioners and
21 the Chair for their allowing a free exchange of
22 ideas and deeply held opinions. Hopefully this
23 process will optimize the positive effects of this
24 process and eliminate or mitigate the negatives.
25 Thank you again.
03705
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much,
2 Mr. Jonasson. We have valued your intercessions
3 over the last number of weeks.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Whelan Enns.
5
6 (GAILE WHELAN ENNS: SWORN)
7
8 THE CHAIRMAN: I would note again, Ms.
9 Whelan Enns, as I said off the record, that you
10 will have no more than one hour.
11 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Certainly. The
12 document that the Commissioners have and that the
13 staff of the CEC have is longer than what I'm
14 going to use your time for in terms of
15 presentation time today. And the approximate
16 structure, if you will, is that the first half of
17 what I have to say relates to our work at Manitoba
18 Wildlands in terms of lands and water policy and
19 protection in Manitoba, and then the second or
20 latter half has to do with living at river lot
21 480.
22 So that means that you have a document
23 that -- I have the highlighted version in front of
24 me. You have considerably more text before you.
25 And I sat where I'm sitting in case I'm going too
03706
1 quickly so that the court reporter or the
2 secretary can let me know that's happening.
3 Thank you again for the opportunity to
4 speak today. I wish to begin by quoting the words
5 of Mr. Terry Sergeant, Chairman of the Clean
6 Environment Commission, from the transcript for
7 February 15, 2005, beginning page 194, line 7.
8 "We also recognize that participants
9 do not have the same access to expert
10 advice and resources available to the
11 proponent. And we further recognize
12 the participants critically
13 questioning the merits and aspects of
14 the projects proposed are doing so for
15 the public good."
16 Mr. Sergeant is correct. Public participants in
17 these hearings, as in others, are participating
18 not because they are against a project or dislike
19 the proponent, for instance, but for the public
20 good. Often that takes the form of being for or
21 in favour of certain actions, changes or
22 improvements to a proposal.
23 An understanding of why we have public
24 reviews and hearings has not been consistently
25 apparent in our media, including in comments from
03707
1 the MFA. So we commend Mr. Sergeant for making
2 his opening statement.
3 This is where we also wish to start
4 our comments and recommendations to the CEC as it
5 begins the daunting process of compiling its
6 report on the public hearings for the proposed
7 Floodway Expansion Project.
8 I want to just identify Manitoba
9 Wildlands participation in the floodway expansion
10 review to date. Manitoba Wildlands provided
11 comments on the draft EIS guidelines. We made an
12 application to the participant assistance program.
13 We provided comments on the proponent's EIS.
14 Manitoba Wildlands then provided comments on the
15 proponent's EIS supplemental filing. And we have
16 provided coverage of the EIS review and hearings
17 for the floodway expansion on our website.
18 Environmental review content in each
19 of our work products just noted as consistent with
20 the identification of primary contents for the EIS
21 guidelines, that is we have stayed with what we
22 recommended when the guidelines were being
23 established and determined. It is our assumption
24 that the CEC will hold the Manitoba Floodway
25 Authority firmly to fulfillment of the EIS
03708
1 guidelines in its recommendations.
2 Manitoba Wildlands work products
3 regarding the floodway expansion EIS review and
4 today's closing statements are available, or will
5 be, on the Manitoba Conservation public registry
6 and at our website,
7 http://manitobawildlands.org/develop.htm#license,
8 or you can go to the economic development part of
9 the website on the environmental licensing page
10 and scroll down to the floodway.
11 Why public participation and why
12 public hearings? And that's sort of a question as
13 these ones wind down. I would like to take the
14 opportunity to just step back and reflect as to
15 why we are here in the public hearing and why we
16 have a public review process. How our society
17 approaches these decisions about activities that
18 will have environmental effects, impacts and
19 implications that go far beyond their physical
20 footprint. Why don't we simply let these
21 decisions be made without public input? After
22 all, there are rules and regulations that must be
23 followed. And as Premier Doer says, "we know the
24 science already." The answer, as we all know, is
25 that as citizens we don't want minimum compliance
03709
1 to environmental standards, and we don't want a
2 one dimensional assessment of projects that may
3 profoundly affect our children's future. As
4 citizens, we are the ones who can make a
5 difference. Our governments and corporations, the
6 proponents, must listen to citizens because the
7 public is the reason for the existence of
8 governments and proponents. It could be said that
9 the public is the reason that we have a floodway,
10 and a proposal to expand the floodway.
11 We have taken the opportunity to list
12 elements that are essential to a balanced and fair
13 environmental assessment and hearing process. We
14 need public or citizen wisdom. Citizen wisdom is
15 where the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
16 and the Manitoba Environment Act came from. And
17 there are not that many, but there are people in
18 the room, who know that I had a staff role
19 regarding the citizen policy work that brought us
20 to Manitoba's current Environment Act.
21 We need to ensure also that the
22 proponent's assumptions, studies and analysis are
23 not the only basis for the decisions, but
24 independent and outside information questions the
25 analysis of all aspects of a project are also
03710
1 needed. We need transparent access to
2 understandable project information. We need to
3 discover what has been missed, what may be
4 corrected to avoid risk. We need the
5 participation of individuals and groups from a
6 broad societal cross-section. Citizen reviewers,
7 independent experts and scientists work together
8 to understand and comment then on the proponent's
9 project. We need to hear from citizens and
10 communities who are already affected or who may be
11 affected by the project. We need all of these
12 elements in order to lend credibility and maintain
13 balance and establish accountability. We need
14 these elements in order to achieve both an
15 environmental and a social licence. And it will
16 be citizens, of course, who know first and are
17 affected first if a project fails and effect is
18 greater than estimated in an EIS or an error
19 occurs that was not anticipated.
20 For these CEC proceedings we are in
21 luck. The caliber and knowledge of the public
22 participants is, shall we say, very high and very
23 concrete, like the floodgates.
24 In meetings with the regulators over
25 the last nine months it has been evident to me
03711
1 that the community participants for the floodway
2 expansion are knowledgeable, independent and
3 caring. It is unfortunate that Manitoba Wildlands
4 has not been able to work with and assist public
5 participants.
6 However, as an aside, if you will,
7 some of the elements needed for credibility
8 regarding environmental assessment have been
9 lacking in process for the proposed floodway
10 expansion. I'm not going to go through everything
11 that's in front of me at the moment. We are very
12 concerned, though, that the reference to you, as
13 in the reference or terms for the hearings, did
14 not acknowledge the existing project, or focus on
15 what is needed in terms of information, questions
16 and analysis in relation to the intent to expand
17 an existing project.
18 Clarity has also been lacking in terms
19 of proponent responses to public comments and
20 requests for information during the Environment
21 Act Review, and this in turn can affect the
22 content of these hearings. We have some
23 recommendations in this area. Again, for the
24 purposes of the use of time now, we will mention a
25 couple of those.
03712
1 We recommend that the CEC petition
2 Manitoba Conservation to adopt a policy of
3 providing assistance to any new proponent that
4 will ensure that previous standards for responding
5 to comments and information requests are adhered
6 to.
7 We recommend that the CEC include in
8 its deliberations and the contents of the Manitoba
9 Conservation public registry file -- let me try
10 again. We recommend that the CEC include in its
11 deliberations the contents of the Manitoba
12 Conservation public registry file for the Floodway
13 Expansion Project, in particular, contributions
14 from non-funded public participants and comments
15 that were not addressed by the proponent in
16 writing prior to or through the hearing process.
17 We further recommend that the CEC
18 include in its report the areas of comment and
19 information requests that the MFA did not fulfill.
20 We recommend that the CEC take action
21 to make all information concerning a project
22 proposal subject to a CEC proceeding, available in
23 both paper and electronic format on a timely
24 basis.
25 International agreements will being
03713
1 changed from commitments to agreements in the
2 text. A great deal of research, analysis and
3 subsequently recommendations from the
4 International Joint Commission are on record as a
5 result of the flood of 1997. We recommend that
6 the CEC review all IJC recommendations pertinent
7 to its mandate for these hearings and articulate
8 which IJC recommendations are being fulfilled by
9 the MFA and need to be fulfilled, and reflect
10 these findings then in their report.
11 Environmental effects issues: We also
12 wish to highlight selected environmental issues
13 that have been inadequately addressed in the EIS
14 which were not addressed in the supplemental
15 filing or which remained outstanding. Each of
16 these is specific to the EIS guidelines which, of
17 course, must be fulfilled by the proponent.
18 Scope/definition of baseline/
19 cumulative effects: I would like to start by
20 revisiting the issue of the mistaken scope of the
21 hearings. And I'm aware that extensive discussion
22 on this issue has taken place, including some more
23 today. It is the position of Manitoba Wildlands
24 that the project scope needs to and should have
25 included the current as well as the expanded
03714
1 project. And then there are some, if you will,
2 several follow-up bullets in the document.
3 It is important to point out that
4 issues of scope have been particularly contentious
5 because previous Manitoba projects, where the so
6 called disrupted environment became defined as the
7 baseline, have not been subject to an
8 environmental assessment or licence including, of
9 course, the current floodway. This is a problem
10 in and of itself. But it is also a problem,
11 because as a result, there are contentious and
12 unresolved, outstanding environmental effects
13 issues that should and need to be addressed prior
14 to this project going forward.
15 Turning the page to protected areas
16 and public policy. Essentially the point that
17 Manitoba Wildlands wishes to make with respect to
18 the consideration of protected areas and public
19 policy in the floodway expansion EIS is that these
20 issues were treated in, at best, a cursory
21 fashion. The analysis is inadequate. The EIS
22 guidelines have not been fulfilled, and as a
23 result it is impossible to determine the impacts
24 of the project on the existing protected areas and
25 on the ability to establish protected areas in the
03715
1 future. It is also important to make any
2 conclusions as to whether the project is in
3 keeping with other Manitoba public policies.
4 So what we have done here in our
5 document to illustrate the point is noted the
6 deficiencies in the EIS and the supplemental
7 filing with respect to protected areas. This is
8 essentially a repetition of our previous technical
9 content, and we suggest that there are, in fact,
10 other areas in public policy that have been
11 missed. This is primary and central to our work.
12 And we would have gladly assisted at the beginning
13 of the work on the EIS so that the protected areas
14 content was accurate. If, for instance, Manitoba
15 Conservation wasn't inclined to help.
16 One simple example, the bottom of this
17 section of the document, there is no area of
18 special designation definition or category in
19 Manitoba public policy or the regulatory regime
20 regarding Crown land. Now, this is what is used
21 in the EIS. It doesn't exist. Manitoba does have
22 several hundred Crown land designations or
23 designated sites in several types under several
24 acts. The EIS guidelines are clear, and this area
25 is deficient. Perhaps the problem is not knowing
03716
1 what a protected area is. Our recommendation in
2 this area is a little lengthy, but we will try
3 this.
4 The reference to the CEC then makes
5 clear direction regarding fulfillment of the lands
6 and water strategy for Manitoba, that includes
7 protected area policies and action plans. It also
8 includes then Government commitments and programs
9 to fulfill the land and water strategies regarding
10 protected areas. It is essential that the CEC
11 report direct the MFA to deal with the
12 deficiencies and inaccuracies in their EIS
13 regarding protected areas. Manitoba Wildland work
14 product details the deficiencies. And previous
15 environmental proposals and their EIS guidelines
16 have also referenced the Manitoba Sustainable
17 Development Principles and Guidelines and the
18 subsequent policies. We assume the same standard
19 for this reference, for this project will be
20 reflected in the CEC report.
21 Public policy and floodway expansion.
22 In terms of public policy, the proponents have not
23 addressed inadequacies in terms of the bare
24 minimum requirements to address the public policy
25 and regulatory framework as outlined in the EIS
03717
1 guidelines. This is actually fairly simple, and
2 it is all on the Government of Manitoba websites.
3 You look for the land and water strategy, you look
4 for the policies that are connected to it, you
5 find the protected areas, for instance, content or
6 the water strategy content. What we have in the
7 EIS is -- I don't know, maybe an attempt to want
8 to deny the connections and the very clear policy
9 tract.
10 Turning the page, to the bottom of
11 that section then, the executive summary indicates
12 that the proposed project is consistent with
13 Manitoba's water policies and also the natural
14 lands and special places policies. This is an
15 impossible statement, considering that the most
16 recent policy document regarding Manitoba's water
17 is the 2003 Manitoba Water Strategy, which is not
18 even merited inclusion in the reference section of
19 the EIS and is not referenced in the EIS itself.
20 The same then is true for the natural
21 lands and special places policy, that's in quotes.
22 The most recent action plan for network of
23 protected areas is neither discussed in the EIS,
24 nor included in the references, nor are any of the
25 numerous Manitoba Public policy publications or
03718
1 references over the last five years that are
2 regarding protected areas.
3 A recommendation then on the public
4 policy framework: Manitoba Wildlands recommends
5 that the CEC have independent reviewers identify
6 all errors of fact and claims regarding the public
7 policy framework which the floodway expansion
8 project would need to fulfill and be in compliance
9 with. These would be referenced in the CEC
10 report, with recommendations to the MFA to
11 undertake public correction and posting.
12 Next is a recommendation regarding
13 archaeology. We recommend that the CEC clearly
14 direct the MFA as to their responsibilities under
15 Manitoba's Heritage Act, while making
16 recommendations to ensure that the MFA fulfills
17 the Heritage Act during planning, site
18 preparation, all construction and operation phases
19 of the project.
20 Climate change: In our comments
21 regarding the EIS and our comments on the
22 supplemental filing, we did criticize the
23 proponent's treatment of the issue of climate
24 change. We still believe that this issue is not
25 receiving the attention and analysis demanded in
03719
1 response to the EIS guidelines, and it is
2 important as an issue to Manitoba. I'm going to
3 mention some examples of areas in which the EIS
4 needs improvement, and again this will be the
5 shortened version where I have highlighted.
6 It is still our opinion that the
7 climate change literature regarding modeling and
8 scenarios contains other studies and information
9 relevant to the Manitoba situation that has not
10 been referenced and, therefore, we must assume not
11 examined by the proponent in putting together the
12 EIS. In the supplemental filing, the MFA chose to
13 dismiss Manitoba Wildlands recommendations related
14 to designing the project with the objective of
15 making the project carbon neutral, and failed to
16 explain whether and how the project is in
17 compliance with Government of Manitoba policy on
18 climate change. The proponent skirted the issue
19 by stating that they felt that the project will
20 not compromise Manitoba's commitment to deal with
21 climate change and Kyoto. And that's a different
22 issue. The expectation is in relation to the EIS
23 guidelines and then what we were trying to support
24 and recommend.
25 The proponent has not provided an
03720
1 analysis of the total impact of all phases of the
2 project in terms of climate change, quantification
3 of GHG emissions, carbon losses or gains for all
4 phases in comparison with totals for Manitoba and
5 some sort of justification from literature in
6 terms of the significance. It has just not been
7 done. The proponents have also not addressed
8 questions regarding loss of trees. Vegetation is
9 different in the way the EIS is written. Personal
10 communications and observations indicate that some
11 areas adjacent to the existing floodway are
12 forested, and loss of forest is significant in
13 emissions and loss of carbon.
14 As far as we know, the MFA does not
15 have, or at the very least has not stated its
16 position on climate change. In the age of Kyoto
17 this is unacceptable for any major developer, let
18 alone a public sector developer.
19 Recommendations - climate change: We
20 recommend that the CEC -- and you will see that
21 you are hitting some edits where I'm trying to use
22 the word recommend rather than direct -- that the
23 CEC recommend that the proponent conduct a more
24 thorough search of the climate change literature,
25 address deficiencies previously noted in our sets
03721
1 of comments, assess its climate change assumptions
2 and make public updated information.
3 We recommend that the CEC direct the
4 proponent to develop a plan that will be publicly
5 reviewed through an accessible, transparent
6 process to arrive at a strategy, including methods
7 and mechanisms for implementation, monitoring and
8 public reporting that will result in the expansion
9 of the floodway being a carbon neutral project,
10 and this should be undertaken jointly with the
11 appropriate Manitoba government departments. In
12 particular full emissions data for the project
13 activity should be public and transparent combined
14 with no net gain emission targets.
15 We recommend that the CEC direct the
16 proponent to develop through a process that
17 includes public review, a comprehensive policy on
18 climate change.
19 Joint Cooperative EA and EIS
20 guidelines: It is clear from these closing
21 statements that we are concerned about fulfillment
22 of the EIS guidelines, as developed by the project
23 administration team for the Floodway Expansion
24 Project, under the cooperative environmental
25 assessment agreement between Canada and Manitoba.
03722
1 Failure to respect and address the contents of the
2 EIS guidelines could be taken as a breach of that
3 cooperative EA agreement. The EIS guideline
4 elements, which Manitoba Wildlands successfully
5 commented on, saw added to the guidelines and
6 continues to identify, must be fulfilled.
7 Living on the flood plain, some myths
8 and some realities. Mr. Gilroy made some odd
9 comments in his opening statement to these
10 hearings on February 15. They can be found
11 beginning on page 219 at line 25 of the hearing
12 transcript. And I will just read the first
13 portion of this excerpt.
14 "Over the course of the next three
15 weeks, the Commission will hear a
16 number of issues that will be raised
17 by special interest groups and some
18 municipalities. Most of these issues,
19 however, although clearly of
20 importance to these groups, are not
21 directly linked to the floodway
22 expansion and should not be mistaken
23 as relating to our project."
24 His reference to special interest groups are
25 unfortunate. And the notion that the MFA does not
03723
1 have responsibilities related to grievances,
2 whether historic or pertaining to the operation of
3 the future floodway gates, may show confusion as
4 to his responsibilities. Political parties and
5 governments often use the term "special interest
6 group" when they do not wish to listen to public
7 interest groups. Essentially, this is a
8 derogatory term and has no place in these
9 hearings. Perhaps Mr. Gilroy does not realize
10 that many of the things that he takes for granted
11 in his personal and occupational life are the
12 result of public interest groups' work on behalf
13 of citizens.
14 Most Manitobans live in the flood
15 plain. The entire Manitoba economy can be
16 affected by a single flood, and the Red River
17 Valley -- and this should say, south of
18 Winnipeg -- is one of the highest revenue, lowest
19 program investment regions for government in our
20 country. And that's not about compensation
21 monies.
22 So we are all in this together. And
23 Mr. Gilroy needs to understand that he and his
24 staff and consultants work for all of us. There
25 simply is no us and them dynamics here, unless the
03724
1 proponent sees advantages to trying to create such
2 a dynamic. To my knowledge, and I attended
3 several floodway public participant meetings in
4 the spring and summer of 2004, none of the public
5 participants are against the expansion of the
6 floodway.
7 Recommendation: Living on the flood
8 plain together. The CEC in its report state
9 clearly that we are all in the flood plain
10 together, that all Manitobans experience both
11 risks and benefits from the floodway projects.
12 Perhaps it would be prudent for the CEC to
13 acknowledge the advice of the Honourable Steve
14 Ashton -- the advice the Honourable Steve Ashton
15 provides to Manitobans with respect to decision
16 making regarding our rivers, lakes and water use.
17 He points out that Manitobans can't play the blame
18 game while we are making decisions. Certainly it
19 is important for the MFA to understand this
20 advice.
21 The other worrisome content in
22 Mr. Gilroy's remarks rests in his comments where
23 he is attempting to say the urban environment is
24 more valuable and more important than the natural
25 environment in the context of these proceedings
03725
1 and assessment of the floodway expansion. These
2 are on page, probably 212 beginning line 7, rather
3 than the number that's on the document. Going to
4 the second and third part of the quote,
5 "The fact is, floodway expansion
6 protects the public from this looming
7 environmental disaster. In this
8 context, Commissioners, the hearing is
9 not typical of most environmental
10 hearings that pit economic development
11 against protection.
12 Floodway expansion by its merits is
13 itself an environmental protection
14 project. In fact, floodway expansion
15 is one of the largest environmental
16 protection investments in Canada."
17 He sort of seems to have it backwards. The source
18 of the economy for Manitoba and Winnipeg is
19 outside of Winnipeg. Our natural world is the
20 basis for our economy, and we would recommend some
21 reading of Canada's own Jane Jacobs.
22 It has been my experience over the
23 last 12 years that Manitobans know their natural
24 environment well and hold it close to both their
25 hearts and minds. This means that Manitobans, for
03726
1 instance, have consistently for 15 years lead
2 other jurisdictions across Canada in their polling
3 responses in support of conservation and
4 protection of our environment. Manitobans have an
5 unique ability to see both the value or public
6 interest reasons and the pragmatic reasons why we
7 need to protect our environment.
8 In short, Manitobans are fairly smart
9 about our natural world and understand what may
10 already be impacted, what risks are being taken,
11 and whether the information about risks or impacts
12 is adequate. They also have vision and patience
13 as evidenced by the building of the original
14 floodway.
15 As a transplanted Manitoban who comes
16 from the flat society to the west, I can say that
17 it is this Manitoba trait of understanding and
18 respect for our natural world that motivates me in
19 my environmental public interest work. Most of
20 the people in the room know also that I live
21 exactly halfway, by water elevation, between
22 Morris and Ste. Agathe in the Red River Valley.
23 Living in the valley, one river lot:
24 Specific to the fact that I have lived on the same
25 river lot on the Red River for 30 years, an
03727
1 inclination exists to identify some of the urban
2 myths and weak foundation to the floodway
3 expansion discussion.
4 Recommendation: Each identified
5 weakness or myth below needs to be addressed by
6 the CEC in its research and recommendations. This
7 list is not comprehensive but rather a set of
8 examples.
9 Myth number one: The current Winnipeg
10 floodway has only benefits, the expanded Winnipeg
11 floodway will have only benefits. Engineering
12 studies and analysis are theoretical, as is much
13 of the content of the EIS. Only public cumulative
14 effects assessment after a project has been in
15 operation and an analysis after a disaster can
16 tell us what is real. The existing Winnipeg
17 floodway does not have an environmental licence
18 and has never been assessed for its environmental
19 effects with respect to environmental licencing
20 standards, both Provincial and Federal. It is
21 simply high risk behaviour to only talk about the
22 benefits of a project without a clear
23 identification of the loss or risks. Any human
24 activity that affects the environment has losses
25 or impacts.
03728
1 Myth two: The current environment,
2 that is of the existing floodway, is the natural
3 environmental baseline for the expansion project.
4 And we have certainly heard about this today.
5 This is an area, had we been funded to do research
6 and participate in the hearing, where we would
7 have in fact focused on these areas. And I'm glad
8 to see that public participants have been working
9 on this.
10 We recommend that the CEC set exactly
11 how the baseline data will be collected
12 immediately after completion of the expansion of
13 the floodway, and how public information as to
14 monitoring impacts and biophysical conditions will
15 be undertaken throughout the life of the expanded
16 floodway.
17 Myth number three: Well, we all agree
18 that the 100 year rate of return flood is an
19 adequate and valid basis for flood proofing,
20 environmental assessment, floodway expansion
21 planning, and projection of flood levels.
22 Actually, we don't all agree on this. Now, that
23 we are in the 21st century, it is time to project
24 and assess risks based on models that do not
25 simply rely on past events. Trends are as, or
03729
1 much more important, especially regarding projects
2 or phenomena which may have climate change
3 causative elements. Put in simple terms, the 10
4 year flood level or rate of return is established
5 by adding two feet to the crest level of flood
6 waters at any given location in the valley from
7 the most recent highest flood event. This is the
8 standard used for flood proofing activity then.
9 I'm not at all speaking about north of Winnipeg
10 because I simply do not know and have not
11 experienced flooding north of Winnipeg.
12 The description above is consistent
13 with my numerous conversations with highway
14 engineers, hydro engineers, floodproofing
15 contractors, municipal officials, MEMO staff,
16 floodproofing inspectors, and I left out the PFRA
17 experts from 1997.
18 I live in a house midway along the Red
19 River between Morris and Ste. Agathe on a Metis
20 Red River lot. The ground floor kitchen and
21 livingroom floor boards has been at the 100 year
22 flood level since reconstruction in 1974 and,
23 therefore, of course, before the 1979 flood.
24 Before that the house was substantially lower.
25 The house ground level was at the 1950 flood
03730
1 level. The house had no damage in 1950 or 1979.
2 Construction and floodproofing earth
3 works were undertaken in the 1980s based on the
4 100 year flood level, keeping the same ground
5 floor level. After all of that, we were at and
6 above the 100 year level. In 1993, our grid road
7 was finally raised to the 100 year flood level,
8 based on recommendations for lack of exit routes
9 in the 1979 flood. We were now in great shape.
10 We were floodproofed to the 100 year
11 level, and then we had 40 feet of water. This is
12 measured from the level of river ice in 1997.
13 Manitoba authorities have never agreed as to what
14 amount of water above the 100 year level covered
15 PTH 246, our grid road, in 1997 at our location,
16 river lot 480. This became very evident when we
17 were negotiating floodproofing levels, and there
18 was about a three foot argument, despite a lot of
19 nails in a lot of trees and telephone poles put in
20 people in boats at crest level.
21 It becomes obvious that the 100 year
22 rate of return is simply the number arrived at
23 after each flood of the century. The new number
24 is the crest or peak level plus freeboard. Our
25 home was floodproofed three times in 25 years for
03731
1 the 100 year level or rate of return. What I have
2 just described is what residents of the valley
3 know and understand. And Winnipeggers who know
4 the valley and grew up on the river also know
5 these things to be true.
6 When I was a member of the
7 International Flood Mitigation Initiative for
8 Manitoba after the 1997 flood, my American
9 colleagues always kept asking, yes, but what is
10 the basis for the 100 year rate of return other
11 than the level of the most recent flood disaster?
12 Good question.
13 Much of what I have detailed above was
14 also confirmed by presenters to the IFME meetings,
15 and I would be inclined to recommend or suggest
16 that the CEC technical advisors might want to take
17 a look at some of those presentations. Some of
18 the engineers who came into the IFME meetings were
19 eye opening for all of us, including myself. I
20 have not included the other activity after the
21 1997 flood, but I was a member of the steering
22 committee for the Ritchot Municipality Community
23 Conversations Project that was part of planning
24 post flood in terms of the community itself.
25 So we seem to be getting ready to
03732
1 expand the Winnipeg floodway due to the 1997 flood
2 of the century. There is a singular lack of
3 acknowledgment of how many 100 year rate of return
4 floods or close calls we have had in the last 55
5 years. We are also not admitting how many 100
6 year levels of floodproofing have been applied to
7 decisions in the valley in the 50 years between
8 the 1950 flood and post 1997 floodproofing
9 actions. We recommend that the CEC give the MFA
10 an undertaking to provide, based on the patterns
11 of floods since 1950, detailed information
12 regarding scenarios that are floods of increased
13 magnitude every 15 years between 1997 and 2050,
14 and then every 20 years between 1997 and 2077.
15 These scenarios will need to be designed both with
16 the floodway expansion and without, looking at the
17 full geographic scope of the floodway regions.
18 They should each be able to be described or
19 charted on one piece of paper plus maps.
20 Myth number four, everyone in the Red
21 River Valley south of Winnipeg is floodproofed now
22 for at least the 100 year flood return event. I'm
23 going to move to the recommendation. We recommend
24 that the CEC clarify for the Government of
25 Manitoba the number of sites in the valley and
03733
1 north of Winnipeg that will require material, sand
2 bagging, et cetera, should a flood similar to 1997
3 occur with the expanded floodway in place.
4 We recommend that the CEC address the
5 effects of the expansion of the floodway in
6 relationship to the floodproofing undertaken after
7 the 1997 flood and make recommendations.
8 Myth number five: The floodway is a
9 ditch, and making a ditch a bigger ditch does not
10 change much. This is an example of determinism
11 and avoidance of ecological thinking where
12 everything is connected and patterns are
13 paramount. Matters of scale, speed of water flow,
14 increase of feet per second, impact on banks and
15 all infrastructure currently in place in the
16 valley are simply not being fully dealt with by
17 the MFA. All systems, including a floodway, have
18 thresholds beyond which effects to the whole
19 system or operation sets in rapidly. Everything
20 that we build, everything that we know to build,
21 is based on parallels in the natural world.
22 Failure of the MFA to take questions
23 on this matter seriously means the CEC will have
24 to determine where those thresholds are, and
25 whether for instance we are going to have a
03734
1 significant river bank and floodway bank erosion
2 due to the expanded floodway. That's also a
3 recommendation.
4 Myth number six: Expanding the
5 floodway has nothing much to do with climate
6 change. Well, they are sure going to laugh at us
7 in 25 years if this is the wisdom and attitude for
8 decisions regarding the expansion of the floodway.
9 We recommend, given the failure of the
10 MFA to take the EIS guidelines seriously, that the
11 CEC seek input from an ecological economist and a
12 climate change expert regarding large
13 infrastructure and earth moving projects and how
14 to mitigate climate change effects.
15 The opportunity and time is right now
16 for Manitoba, Winnipeg and Canada, to step forward
17 together and make this huge infrastructure project
18 the first carbon neutral project of its kind in
19 Canada. We recommend that the CEC make as a
20 condition of any potential licence for the
21 expansion of the floodway, that the MFA file a
22 public climate change mitigation and adaptation
23 strategy, with the goal of making the floodway
24 expansion a carbon neutral project, that the
25 strategy be public and transparent at every stage
03735
1 of its implementation, and that the MFA work with
2 Energy Science Technology Manitoba and Manitoba
3 Water Stewardship -- I might want to add
4 stakeholders in there -- and the contracted
5 industry sectors involved in expanding the
6 floodway to arrive at such a strategy, including
7 training, awareness, and public education aspects.
8 Myth number seven: The water in the
9 expanded floodway will be in motion at all times,
10 therefore, public participants' concerns about
11 stagnant water are irrelevant. We are struck by
12 the comments in the media, and this is -- maybe
13 they were wrong in the media -- and during the
14 hearings from MFA staff. The floodway doesn't
15 stop being a floodway between floods or after a
16 big rain or after the flood gates return to rest.
17 After 30 years, all I can say, to my knowledge
18 there is often water in the floodway that is
19 stagnant. If this is going to reverse with the
20 expansion of the floodway, clear information to
21 that effect must be filed by the MFA. More likely
22 a wider channel will mean more stagnant water.
23 Otherwise, the MFA must address concerns about
24 stagnant water, especially in mosquito season in
25 the months after flood season.
03736
1 Myth number eight: If government is
2 building it everything will be fine, after all,
3 this is a public sector project that is in the
4 public's interest. This kind of thinking takes us
5 back to my opening comments. We have public
6 reviews and public hearings so that public
7 knowledge, independent analysis, and information
8 which might be ignored or missed otherwise is part
9 of an assessment. It is particularly important
10 when government is designing, building, self
11 assessing, holding its own hearings, and licencing
12 itself, that the public interest and concerns be
13 fully voiced and accepted as valid. No other
14 developer gets to licence themselves. It is
15 precisely these projects everyone assumes will be
16 built which must have the most scrupulous
17 environmental review.
18 Myth number nine: Everything needed
19 for compensation for next time is in place.
20 Anyone who thinks this should pause and consider
21 having water on the upper levels of the new MTS
22 Centre on Portage Avenue. This is a reflection of
23 the 1997 flood water levels without the floodway
24 or if the floodgates had not held. Or maybe
25 thinking about aquifer damage and ruptures where
03737
1 intensive livestock operations are suddenly
2 without water, safe water.
3 As I am sure the panel has heard
4 during the hearings, the small recommended fund
5 for compensation is a joke and an insult to anyone
6 who knows about the Red River and its way. We
7 recommend that the CEC place an undertaking for
8 the MFA to provide a full set of figures as to the
9 cost of the next flood of 1997 levels in Manitoba.
10 There are many kinds of mitigation and
11 compensation costs that will continue, including
12 the cost of closing the fourth side of many dykes.
13 We further recommend that the CEC
14 investigate the status of negotiations between
15 Canada and Manitoba regarding disaster assistance,
16 especially for the next "flood of the century" and
17 make this information a part of their report.
18 Myth number 10, besides it is Winnipeg
19 we need to protect, that is where the economy is.
20 About 20 years ago I coined the term perimeter
21 syndrome. Most Manitobans know what that means --
22 funny, people in Thompson know what it means --
23 whether they live and work inside or outside of
24 the perimeter highway that surrounds Winnipeg.
25 Perhaps now we need a new term, floodway syndrome.
03738
1 We are truly all in this together, ecologically
2 and economically. Any misguided assumptions that
3 you should protect one part of the environment or
4 economy versus the other carries risks of short
5 sighted thinking and planning and potential risks
6 when expanding our floodway.
7 An eleventh myth occurred to me
8 yesterday afternoon when I was here, because I was
9 very struck by the discussion and analysis
10 regarding Highway 59. To the best of my
11 knowledge, I agreed with what I was hearing. But
12 we were talking about 200 and 700 year rate of
13 return floods without any reference to weather.
14 So the simple and obvious statement is that if we
15 were having a 200 year or 700 year rate of return
16 flood, we would also have extraordinary and
17 adverse weather far beyond what preceded the 1997
18 flood and, therefore, we would have a considerable
19 amount of overland water on the east side of 59.
20 This phenomena was a very significant ingredient,
21 as in the southeast corner of the province and
22 weather and overland water was a significant
23 ingredient in '97.
24 Hearing procedures and lessons
25 learned, this is all quite straightforward stuff
03739
1 from the CEC report, so I will jump to the
2 recommendation. That all parties to these
3 hearings would consider which of the contents in
4 the report the Clean Environment Commission
5 commissioned about its hearings, which have been
6 acted on and which are outstanding or important.
7 And I have highlighted a couple of things in the
8 latter part of this list. There is a reference
9 here to the public registry being available at the
10 hearings and housed in a separate room from the
11 hearings, with staff available to assist users.
12 During a recent set of CEC hearings,
13 the environmental community took that on and made
14 sure that we were able to, among ourselves, among
15 the public participants, actually have the
16 registry on site. All exhibits submitted during
17 the hearing should be included in the public
18 registry.
19 And then down near the end, there is a
20 need in some instances for objective, balanced,
21 peer reviewed study of issues raised at CEC
22 hearings.
23 This particular report was a lot of
24 work. The PhD candidate who completed the work at
25 the U of M was here for most of the day yesterday,
03740
1 and I was glad to see him in the room. There are
2 a lot of Manitobans that participated in the work
3 to arrive at this report. I was glad to see it
4 posted again on the CEC website after a bit of
5 time of it being at rest.
6 There are, of course, a significant
7 set of recommendations in the COSDI report from
8 1999, and this is the Committee on Sustainable
9 Development Implementation in Manitoba, that
10 pertained to hearings and pertained to public
11 access to everything to do with an environmental
12 proposal.
13 Some quick concluding remarks. The
14 Manitoba Floodway Authority may end up with a
15 recommendation for an environmental licence from
16 the CEC and considerable loss in terms of its
17 social licence to operate. That outcome can still
18 be avoided. We will see what the MFA has to say
19 in its closing statements.
20 When a project has the significant and
21 variety of Federal responsibilities that this
22 project does, then public participants are
23 justified in expecting that those Federal
24 responsibilities will be fulfilled and acted on.
25 Again, we will see what the Federal responsible
03741
1 agencies determine regarding the deficiencies in
2 answering their information requests and
3 fulfilling the EIS guidelines and the Canadian
4 Environmental Assessment Act.
5 Lack of support for conservation and
6 environmental organizations to participate in
7 these hearings is a sign that the CEC may be
8 mistaking its role. This is actually not a
9 comment from me. I have been hearing this and I
10 have been a little bit startled myself. While the
11 participant assistance program under the
12 Environment Act is only recently being used, I
13 have had otherwise knowledgeable Manitobans inform
14 me that the CEC is supposed to decide who gets to
15 participate in a hearing. And this is simply
16 wrong. We recommend and we ask the CEC that you
17 clarify your open hearings policy in your report.
18 Those Manitobans and Winnipeggers who
19 have stopped me in the street, in elevators, or
20 meetings about other subjects, to ask why our
21 office was not working through the Floodway
22 Expansion Hearing process, their comments were
23 appreciated, and confirmed my faith in Manitoba's
24 inherent ecological understanding and expectation
25 of a standard of fairness.
03742
1 Public policy fulfillment must be a
2 given in this kind of proceeding. Any commission
3 or regulator's body that let's the proponent off
4 the hook regarding accuracy and responsibility on
5 something as basic and simple as protected areas
6 policy is simply not doing a credible job.
7 It is also important to remember that
8 all of our decisions regarding water management,
9 water conservation and water projects need to be
10 discussed together in a holistic fashion. An
11 ongoing sequences of one-of decisions will not
12 strengthen our civil or natural ecosystems
13 operation.
14 I have writing here in front of me
15 that is not on the page in document. It is just a
16 quick reminder that there are three parts of the
17 environmental review for the floodway expansion
18 project; the review under the Manitoba Environment
19 Act, which starts with arriving at the EIS
20 guidelines, these Clean Environment Commission
21 hearings and their report, and the Federal
22 assessment under the Canadian Environmental
23 Assessment Act.
24 Public participants are often
25 extremely frustrated by any perception of stop and
03743
1 start or separation, particularly when there is a
2 fair bit of Federal responsibility.
3 And finally, the opportunity still
4 exists to make the Manitoba Floodway Expansion
5 Project a carbon neutral undertaking,
6 demonstrating to the rest of Canada that Manitoba
7 truly is Kyoto friendly, carbon savvy, and
8 emissions wise.
9 I appreciate the opportunity to make a
10 statement today, and I wanted to also, if I could,
11 just thank the municipalities for their work, for
12 their analysis. I was glad to be in the room to
13 hear the presentation this afternoon, and quite
14 impressed with the recommendation for a peer
15 review committee. I wanted to say that I think it
16 belongs in Water Stewardship, not in Manitoba
17 Conservation. That all materials being public can
18 make a dramatic improvement in good will in social
19 licence and quality of decision making for
20 something like that.
21 I also wanted to say I have been
22 surprised, and I haven't been in the room
23 consistently enough to know the ups and downs of
24 this discussion about compensation, but as
25 somebody who has lived on the river for as long as
03744
1 I have, and grown to love and respect the river,
2 it is startling to me for there to be any
3 conversation about the Floodway Authority dealing
4 with compensation. It doesn't process at all.
5 The Floodway Authority has a very clear job to do.
6 Compensation can be where it has been, which is
7 Water Resources, now in Water Stewardship
8 department and with MEMO. So this is my second
9 thank you.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much,
11 Ms. Whelan Enns. Before you leave the table, page
12 16 in our copies didn't print. Could you make
13 that page available to us, please? It is a blank
14 page.
15 MS. WHELAN ENNS: I had a student
16 doing the photocopying, so I will fix that.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Photocopiers have their
18 own personalities.
19 MS. WHELAN ENNS: When you tell them
20 to go two-sided, they sometimes skip a page just
21 for fun.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: I guess some of us do
23 have page 16, so we can get copies at the office.
24 Ignore that comment.
25 I would also like to ask you, not at
03745
1 this time because it is clearly outside of our
2 purview, but I would like you, off the record, to
3 sometime send me some email comments about the
4 paragraph on the top of page 21, when you talk
5 about the CEC deciding who gets to participate in
6 hearings. I don't want to get into that
7 discussion now, but please provide me with
8 comments by email.
9 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Sure, absolutely.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for
11 your presentation today.
12 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Thank you.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: That brings today's
14 proceedings to a close. We will meet tomorrow
15 morning here at 9:00 o'clock, for what will
16 hopefully likely be the last piece of business of
17 these hearings, and that is the closing statements
18 of the Floodway Authority. Before we conclude, we
19 have the usual daily administrivia of recording
20 exhibits.
21 MS. JOHNSON: Exhibit 124 will be the
22 presentation from Mr. David Andres on the
23 evaluation of the effects of the expansion of the
24 Winnipeg Floodway on ice levels water levels
25 downstream of the floodway outlet; 125 is the
03746
1 submission of the same name; 126 is a presentation
2 on the improvements to minimize artificial
3 flooding; exhibit 127 will be the closing
4 statement from the RM of Springfield presented by
5 Reeve Holland; 128 is the closing statement for
6 the Rural Municipality by East St. Paul, Rural
7 Municipality of St. Clements and Springfield
8 presented by Mr. Currie; 129 is the cumulative
9 effects document; 130 is the closing statement for
10 the Coalition for Flood Protection North of the
11 Floodway; and 131 is Manitoba Wildlands closing
12 statement.
13
14 (EXHIBIT 124: Presentation:
15 Evaluation of the Effects of the
16 Expansion of the Winnipeg Floodway on
17 Ice Levels Water Levels Downstream of
18 the Floodway Outlet, presented by
19 David Andres, Northwest Hydraulic
20 Consultants)
21
22 (EXHIBIT 125: Submission: Evaluation
23 of the Effects of the Expansion of the
24 Winnipeg Floodway on Ice Levels Water
25 Levels Downstream of the Floodway
03747
1 Outlet)
2
3 (EXHIBIT 126: Presentation:
4 Improvements to Minimize Artificial
5 Flooding)
6
7 (EXHIBIT 127: Closing statement: RM
8 of Springfield - John Holland)
9
10 (EXHIBIT 128: Closing statement:
11 Rural Municipality of East St. Paul,
12 St. Clements and Springfield by Orvel
13 Currie)
14
15 (EXHIBIT 129: Cumulative
16 Environmental Effects)
17
18 (EXHIBIT 130: Closing Statement:
19 Coalition for Flood Protection North
20 of the Floodway presented by Jack
21 Jonasson)
22
23 (EXHIBIT 131: Closing Statement:
24 Manitoba Wildlands)
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, we stand
03748
1 adjourned.
2 (Adjourned at 4:45 p.m.)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
03749
1 OFFICIAL EXAMINER'S CERTIFICATE
2
3
4
5 I, CECELIA REID, a duly appointed Official
6 Examiner in the Province of Manitoba, do hereby
7 certify the foregoing pages are a true and correct
8 transcript of my Stenotype notes as taken by me at
9 the time and place hereinbefore stated.
10
11
12
13 ----------------------------
14 Cecelia Reid
15 Official Examiner, Q.B.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25